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.

Eve Santos & Brenda Desuasido v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

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


October 20, 2011

EVE SANTOS & BRENDA DESUASIDO, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It was removed from Sutter County Superior Court on August 5, 2011. On August 12, 2011, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The motion was noticed to be heard on October 5, 2011.

On September 26, 2011, because plaintiff had not filed either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion, the undersigned continued the hearing on the motion to November 9, 2011; ordered plaintiff to show cause, in writing, no later than October 19, 2011, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion; and directed plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than October 19, 2011. Plaintiff was advised that failure to file an opposition would be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion and would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Although the deadlines have now passed, the court docket reflects that plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause, an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. In light of plaintiff's failures, the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute the action and for failure to comply with court orders and the Local Rules, and that defendant's motion to dismiss be denied as moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of November 9, 2011, on defendant's motion to dismiss, is vacated; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based on plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action and to comply with court orders and the Local Rules;

2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 6) be denied as moot; and 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

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." 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).

20111020

© 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.