WOODY v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 14-cv-475-JPG-DGW. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20140717994
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC's motion to strike paragraph 9 and portions of paragraph 8 of Plaintiff Ceara M. Woody's complaint (Doc. 6). Defendant's motion was filed on May 1, 2014. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), plaintiff's response was due 30 days after the motion was filed, but 30 days have passed and plaintiff has not responded. The Court may, it its discretion, construe a party's failure
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC's motion to strike paragraph 9 and portions of paragraph 8 of Plaintiff Ceara M. Woody's complaint (Doc. 6). Defendant's motion was filed on May 1, 2014. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), plaintiff's response was due 30 days after the motion was filed, but 30 days have passed and plaintiff has not responded. The Court may, it its discretion, construe a party's failure t..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC's motion to strike paragraph 9 and portions of paragraph 8 of Plaintiff Ceara M. Woody's complaint (Doc. 6). Defendant's motion was filed on May 1, 2014. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), plaintiff's response was due 30 days after the motion was filed, but 30 days have passed and plaintiff has not responded. The Court may, it its discretion, construe a party's failure to file a timely response as an admission of the merits of the motion. Local Rule 7.1(c). The Court hereby ORDERS plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE on or before July 30, 2014, why the Court should not construe her failure to timely respond to the motion as an admission of the merits of the motion. Failure to respond in a timely manner to this order may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket. See In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
