IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 25, 2011
CELSO COSTELO, PLAINTIFF,
PRO30 FUNDING, ET AL.,
ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On January 24, 2011, defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss; and on January 27, 2011, defendant Placer Title Company filed a motion to dismiss.
Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." Id.
Plaintiff has not filed opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiff's failure to oppose should therefore be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss, set for July 23, 2011, is vacated; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s January 24, 2011 motion to dismiss be granted;
2. Defendant Placer Title Company's January 27, 2011 motion to dismiss be granted; and
3. This action be dismissed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.