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.

Carter v. Central Pacific Mortgage Company

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


October 26, 2010

ROBERT CARTER, INDIVIDUALLY BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MILDRED CARTER, AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MILDRED CARTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CENTRAL PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, INC., A CORPORATION; TRAVIS CHATMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL; TISHA TAYLOR, AN INDIVIDUAL; TM REALTY, INC., A CORPORATION AND DOES 1 TO 50, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Plaintiffs were required to respond to an Order filed September 14, 2010, by either filing proof that Defendants Central Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc., Travis Chatman, and Tisha Taylor were served with process or a document showing good cause for Plaintiffs' failure to serve these Defendants within the 120-day period prescribed in the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 12.) This filing was due no later than 4:00 p.m. on October 18, 2010. Plaintiffs failed to file the required document by this deadline.

Plaintiffs were warned in the September 14, 2010 Order that failure to make the required showing by the deadline would result in these Defendants being dismissed from this action. Since there has been no response, Central Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc., Travis Chatman and Tisha Taylor are dismissed from this action without prejudice.

Further, an Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference issued on May 21, 2010, which scheduled a status conference for September 20, 2010 and required the parties to file a Joint Status Report no later than fourteen days prior to the scheduling conference. The Order notified Plaintiffs that a failure to "set forth specific information regarding the time Plaintiff(s) needs to identify any 'Doe' defendants will be deemed an abandonment of any claims against such defendants, and a dismissal order will follow." (ECF No. 5 at 2 n.2.) Plaintiffs failed to file a status report. An Order to Show Cause issued on September 14, 2010, which continued the status conference to November 1, 2010, and required the parties to file a status report fourteen days prior to the status conference. Plaintiffs again failed to file a status report. Since Plaintiffs have not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does 1-50 are dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101026

© 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.