Filed: Apr. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMSS LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Defendant California Reconveyance Company (CRC) moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on March 4, 2015. Doc. 9. The hearing was set for April 9, 2015 and Plaintiff's opposition was due Thursday, March 26, 2015. Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to CRC's motion and the Court issued its ruling on April 14, 2015. Doc. 20. This ruling dismissed al
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMSS LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Defendant California Reconveyance Company (CRC) moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on March 4, 2015. Doc. 9. The hearing was set for April 9, 2015 and Plaintiff's opposition was due Thursday, March 26, 2015. Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to CRC's motion and the Court issued its ruling on April 14, 2015. Doc. 20. This ruling dismissed all..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S UNTIMELY OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMSS
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
Defendant California Reconveyance Company (CRC) moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on March 4, 2015. Doc. 9. The hearing was set for April 9, 2015 and Plaintiff's opposition was due Thursday, March 26, 2015. Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition to CRC's motion and the Court issued its ruling on April 14, 2015. Doc. 20. This ruling dismissed all but one of Plaintiff's claims, and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why that remaining claim should not be dismissed. Id. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend all dismissed claims. Id
The Court received Plaintiff's opposition April 20, 2015; twenty-five days after the opposition was due and eleven days after the hearing was to take place. See Local Rule 230(c) (available here: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/EDCA%20Local%20Rules%20Effective%201-1-15.pdf).
Defendant US Bank filed its own motion to dismiss on March 26, 2015. Doc. 14. The hearing was set for April 28, 2015 and Plaintiff's opposition was due April 14, 2015. However, US Bank's motion was mooted by the April 14 Order. The Court received Plaintiff's opposition to US Bank's motion April 20, 2015; six days after it was due.
Plaintiff offers no reason why the Court should consider her late filings. Nor does she present any argument that would justify reconsideration of the April 14, 2015 Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Thus, the April 14 Order remains in effect. The Court advises Plaintiff to carefully review the April 14 Order, and mind the deadlines therein.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Order issued April 14, 2015 remains in effect. That Order requires Plaintiff to file any amended complaint no later than April 28, 2015. No later than 21 days after service of any amended complaint, Defendants shall file a response thereto.
The April 14, 2015 Order also orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than April 28, 2015, why the Court should not dismiss her eighth cause of action.
Plaintiff is further warned that if Plaintiff fails to timely amend or show cause in writing, the associated claims shall be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
