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


August 4, 2010

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, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXPUNGE THE LIS PENDENS AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On August 3, 2010, Defendant First Horizon Home Loans ("First Horizon") filed an ex parte application seeking an order expunging the lis pendens recorded by Plaintiffs on June 23, 2009 in the Sacramento County Recorder's Office. (Docket No. 49.) First Horizon's ex parte application, however, is denied as moot since an order issued on March 25, 2010 granted First Horizon's motion to expunge this same lis pendens. (See Docket No. 47.) First Horizon, therefore, has already obtained the relief that it requests in its ex parte application.

The order issued on March 25, 2010 also granted First Horizon's dismissal motion, and dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs were granted fourteen days to file an amended complaint; yet, to date, Plaintiffs have not filed an amended pleading or otherwise participated in this litigation. This case, therefore, has languished on the Court's docket without action for over four months.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall file an explanation no later than August 11, 2010 at 4:30 p.m., stating why their case should not be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for their failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (stating that Rule 41(b) allows a court to act "on [its] own initiative, to clear [its] calendar[] of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief"). If Plaintiffs fail to file a timely and satisfactory explanation, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice.

20100804

© 1992-2010 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.