McCANN v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICES, LLC, 8:14-cv-815-T-30AEP. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150227a25
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court entered a stay of these proceedings on August 24, 2014, in response to the Receiver's Report Concerning the Hoffman Law Group, and Request for Stay of Proceedings (Dkt. #6). The Court later continued the stay through December 19, 2014, to permit the Plaintiffs an opportunity to communicate to the Court whether they would proceed with this action, in light of the injunction preventing the
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court entered a stay of these proceedings on August 24, 2014, in response to the Receiver's Report Concerning the Hoffman Law Group, and Request for Stay of Proceedings (Dkt. #6). The Court later continued the stay through December 19, 2014, to permit the Plaintiffs an opportunity to communicate to the Court whether they would proceed with this action, in light of the injunction preventing the H..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court entered a stay of these proceedings on August 24, 2014, in response to the Receiver's Report Concerning the Hoffman Law Group, and Request for Stay of Proceedings (Dkt. #6). The Court later continued the stay through December 19, 2014, to permit the Plaintiffs an opportunity to communicate to the Court whether they would proceed with this action, in light of the injunction preventing the Hoffman Law Group from doing so.
The Court granted the Plaintiffs Jack C. Hollingsworth and Harold Henderson's respective motions requesting continuation of the stay and an extension of time to retain new counsel. Plaintiff Errol Atkinson indicated that he would represent himself, but requested that the Court extend the stay. The Court provided the Plaintiffs until February 19, 2015, to file a report or alternatively direct their counsel to file an appearance, failing which would result in dismissal without prejudice. No attorney has appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs and no report is filed. The Court also notes that although the Clerk issued a summons for the Defendant, no evidence of completed service is on the docket. As such, the Court deems it appropriate to dismiss this case without prejudice.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and all pending motions are denied as moot.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
