Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ALMUTARREB v. HOMELOAN CORPORATION, 15-cv-05207-DMR. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160503c05 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 02, 2016
Latest Update: May 02, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DONNA M. RYU , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed a motion to dismiss on April 13, 2016. [Docket No. 16.] Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any brief in opposition to Defendant's motion was due on April 27, 2016, but no such opposition has been received. Plaintiffs Muhamed Almutarreb and Sophia Almutarreb are ordered to respond by May 5, 2016, and show cause for their failure to respond to the motion in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a)
More

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed a motion to dismiss on April 13, 2016. [Docket No. 16.] Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any brief in opposition to Defendant's motion was due on April 27, 2016, but no such opposition has been received. Plaintiffs Muhamed Almutarreb and Sophia Almutarreb are ordered to respond by May 5, 2016, and show cause for their failure to respond to the motion in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternatively to file a statement of nonopposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). This order to show cause does not constitute permission to file a late opposition. If Plaintiffs Muhamed Almutarreb and Sophia Almutarreb do not respond by May 5, 2016, Defendant's motion may be granted or the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Further, on April 14, 2016, the court instructed Plaintiffs to file a letter by April 20, 2016 regarding the status of service on Defendant Homeloan Corporation. [Docket No. 19.] Plaintiffs did not respond. On April 21, 2016, the court issued an order to Plaintiffs to show cause why they failed to timely comply with the court's instruction. [Docket No. 20.] On April 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a response. Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that Defendant Homeloan Corporation appears to be defunct and has not been served. Counsel represented that Plaintiffs have given him authority to dismiss Defendant Homeloan Corporation and he would do so in the near future. Plaintiff has not yet filed a dismissal of Defendant Homeloan Corporation. By May 9, 2016, Plaintiffs shall file a dismissal of Defendant Homeloan Corporation or a status report explaining why they have not done so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer