Filed: May 25, 2018
Latest Update: May 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE Re: Dkt. No. 49 WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc., U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Trust, and Summit Management Company, LLC (the "Caliber Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss on April 23, 2018. Dkt. No. 48. Plaintiff Raymond Lou's response was due May 7, 2018, but he has failed to respond. I have reviewed the motion, and there is no need for a hearing. For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE Re: Dkt. No. 49 WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc., U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Trust, and Summit Management Company, LLC (the "Caliber Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss on April 23, 2018. Dkt. No. 48. Plaintiff Raymond Lou's response was due May 7, 2018, but he has failed to respond. I have reviewed the motion, and there is no need for a hearing. For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED ..
More
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Re: Dkt. No. 49
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.
Defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc., U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Trust, and Summit Management Company, LLC (the "Caliber Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss on April 23, 2018. Dkt. No. 48. Plaintiff Raymond Lou's response was due May 7, 2018, but he has failed to respond. I have reviewed the motion, and there is no need for a hearing. For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED.
In addition, I DISMISS this case for failure to prosecute. On May 14, 2018, I ordered Lou to show cause why he failed to timely respond to the pending motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 49. This followed his lawyer's withdrawal for inability to communicate with Lou (Dkt. No. 37, 42), effective on February 26, 2018, Lou's failure to enter an appearance thereafter, and his nonresponsiveness to the Caliber defendants, who have attempted to communicate with him in regards to their case management obligations but did not receive responses to their letters. Dkt. No. 45 at 2. I ordered Lou to respond by May 18, 2018, Dkt. No. 49, but he has failed to do so. Accordingly, this case is also DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
