Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ahmadyar v. First Horizon Home Loans

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 13, 2009

PATRICIA AHMADYAR, AN INDIVIDUAL, AHMAD AHMADYAR, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS, A TEXAS CORPORATION AND A DIVISION OF FIRST TENNESSEE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE and RULE 4(M) NOTICE

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for October 19, 2009 is continued to November 16, 2009, commencing at 9:00 a.m. This continuance is because the Status Report, which was filed one day late at the risk of invoking sanctions proceedings, reveals this case is not ready to be scheduled. That status report includes the statement: "all named defendants have been served." Yet only Defendant First Horizon Home Loans filed the status report. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the November 16, 2009 status conference.

Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any defendant not served with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule will be dismissed as a defendant in this action, unless Plaintiff files a proof of service or shows "good cause" for the failure to serve defendant within this prescribed period on or before 4:00 p.m. on October 19, 2009.

If Plaintiff has served Defendant Quality Loan Service, Plaintiff shall explain in a filing due no later than 4:00 p.m. on October 19, 2009 how this action is being prosecuted against Defendant Quality Loan Service, and if it is not being prosecuted, why Defendant Quality Loan Service should not be dismissed for failure of prosecution.

Lastly, the Doe defendants are dismissed, since timely justification has not been filed warranting Doe defendant allegations remaining in this case. The caption is changed to reflect this dismissal.

20091013

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.