Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lam v. Penny Mac, 2:19-cv-00709-TLN-CKD PS. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20200203945 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 31, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2020
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Calendared for hearing on February 5, 2020 is defendant Auction.com Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that "[n]o party will be ent
More

ORDER

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Calendared for hearing on February 5, 2020 is defendant Auction.com Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion.

Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." In addition, Local Rule 230(i) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."

The court shall continue the hearing date for this motion to March 18, 2020.

Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to timely file an opposition to the motion identified above will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motions and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed as to that moving defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing for dismissal of actions based on lack of prosecution).

The court also issued an order on December 17, 2019 directing plaintiffs to show cause why the court should not recommend dismissal of Nations Direct Mortgage, LLC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 64.) Plaintiffs are also ordered to respond to this order no later than March 4, 2020. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this defendant be dismissed under Rule 41.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of February 5, 2020 is vacated. Hearing on defendant Auction.com Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 65) is continued to March 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 24.

2. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition, if any, to the motion for judgment on the pleadings no later than March 4, 2020. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition and shall result in submission of the motion on the papers and a recommendation that this action be dismissed as to Auction.com Inc. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3. Reply, if any, shall be filed no later than March 11, 2020.

4. No later than March 4, 2020, plaintiffs shall show cause why the court should not recommend dismissal of Nations Direct Mortgage, LLC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for want of prosecution.

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