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.

Victor A. Dela Cruz and Mary M. v. Edward Py Jen Yuan D/B/A Imperial Mortgage; Imperial

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


November 7, 2011

VICTOR A. DELA CRUZ AND MARY M. DELA CRUZ,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EDWARD PY JEN YUAN D/B/A IMPERIAL MORTGAGE; IMPERIAL DEVELOPMENT INC.; WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE COMPANY; JP MORGAN CHASE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WAMU MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-PR1 TRUST; CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY; AND DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; FED. R. CIV. P. 4(M) NOTICE

The Joint Status Report ("JSR") filed October 31, 2011, reveals this case is not ready to be scheduled. Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference scheduled for hearing on November 14, 2011 is continued to February 27, 2012, commencing at 9:00 a.m. A further joint status report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date.

Further, Plaintiffs state in the JSR that they "have not yet served Defendants Edward Py-Yen Yuan dba Imperial Mortgage and Imperial Development Inc. as their current location have not been able to have been discovered. Plaintiff[s] anticipate[] dismissing them without prejudice as defendants." (JSR 2:24-26.) Plaintiffs are notified under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve either above mentioned defendant with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule may result in the unserved defendant being dismissed. To avoid dismissal, on or before November 18, 2011, Plaintiffs shall file proof of service for these defendants or a sufficient explanation why service was not effected within Rule 4(m)'s prescribed service period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111107

© 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.