UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
August 30, 2011
ANTHONY LEMON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
BEAR STEARNS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge
Order GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss  [Filed 08/01/11] and VACATING Hearing Thereon
On March 24, 2011, Plaintiffs, Anthony Lemon and Laurielle Lemon ("Plaintiffs"), filed a Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants, Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corporation, EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC"), and JP Morgan Chase (collectively, "Defendants"). (Dkt. No. 1.) On April 28, 2011, EMC removed the action to federal court and subsequently moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 6, 7.) Plaintiffs, however, filed an untimely opposition to EMC's motion, in which they failed to substantively address EMC's arguments. (Dkt. No. 17.) Consequently, on June 8, 2011, the Court granted EMC's motion to dismiss, giving Plaintiffs thirty days in which to amend their Complaint.
Plaintiffs, however, failed to meet this deadline. Nevertheless, upon Plaintiffs' request for leave, the Court permitted Plaintiffs' untimely First Amended Complaint to be filed and processed. In doing so, the Court cautioned Plaintiffs that "[i]n the future, further leave of this nature w[ould] not be so readily granted." (Dkt. No. 20.)
Currently before the Court is EMC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 22.) Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiffs' Opposition was due on August 22, 2011. Yet, to date, Plaintiffs have failed to oppose EMC's Motion, which may be deemed consent to the granting of the Motion. See L.R. 7-12. Upon considering EMC's arguments in support of its Motion and because Plaintiffs appear unwilling or unable to properly prosecute their claims against EMC, the Court hereby GRANTS EMC's Motion to Dismiss. All claims against EMC are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The September 12, 2011 hearing on this matter is VACATED and no appearances are necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.