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.

Cox v. Aurora Loan Services

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 25, 2010

ROBERT L. COX PLAINTIFF,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES; SCME MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM, INC.; LENDING CAPITAL, INC. DBA LENDING CAPITAL HOME LOANS; PATRICK TOBIN MORAN; JIM A. TOUSIF; PETER DOAN AND DOES 1-20 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Concurrently before the Court is a Motion by Plaintiff Robert Cox ("Plaintiff") for Preliminary Injunctive Relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and a Motion by Defendants Aurora Loan Services and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("Defendants") to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to timely file Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to a motion must be filed not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. The date of the hearing on motion was set for January 14, 2010. Fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing was December 31, 2009. No opposition was filed as required. In light of the fact that no opposition was filed by Plaintiff, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss*fn1 (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED with leave to amend.

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint not later than twenty (20) days after the date this Memorandum and Order is filed electronically. If no amended complaint is filed within said twenty (20)-day period, without further notice, Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 11) is DENIED. A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish a likelihood of success. Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 122, 1227 (9th Cir. 2003) As Plaintiff's Complaint has been currently dismissed, no such likelihood of success is present.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.