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.

Ana Celia Galindo; Rene Galindo Alvarez, As Husband and Wife As Joint Tenant v. Mortgageit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 17, 2011

ANA CELIA GALINDO; RENE GALINDO ALVAREZ, AS HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANT, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MORTGAGEIT, INC., A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN;
TICOR TITLE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN;
MAI REALTY GROUP, A BUSINESS ENTITY FOR UNKNOWN;
MORTGAGE ELECTORNIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., A BUSINESS ENTITY FROM UNKNOWN, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MORTAGEIT, INC. AND TICOR TITLE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS [TWO (2)Motions filed on 12/21/10]

Presently before the court is Defendant Mortgageit, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Dkt. No. 15) and Defendant Ticor Title Company of California's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Dkt. No. 14). Because Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, the court GRANTS both motions.

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion. C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-9. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that "[t]he failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion." C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-12.

The hearings on Defendants' motions were set for January 31, 2011 and February 7, 2011. Plaintiffs' oppositions were therefore due by January 10, 2011 and January 17, 2011, respectively. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, or any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the court deems Plaintiffs' failure to oppose as consent to granting the motions to dismiss, and GRANTS both motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110517

© 1992-2011 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.