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.

Susana M. Velasco v. World Savings Bank Fsb

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


December 5, 2011

SUSANA M. VELASCO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WORLD SAVINGS BANK FSB; WACHOVIA; ETS SERVICES, LLC; WELLS FARGO BANK; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

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). On September 16, 2011, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., formerly known as Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, formerly known as World Savings Bank, FSB, sued as World Savings Bank FSB, Wachovia, and Wells Fargo Bank ("Wells Fargo"), removed this action from Sacramento County Superior Court. Dckt. No. 1. Then, on September 23, 2011, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint and noticed the motion to be heard on November 9, 2011. Dckt. No. 8.

On October 31, 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 December 14, 2011; ordered plaintiff to show cause, in writing, no later than December 1, 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 December 1, 2011. Dckt. No. 10. The undersigned further stated that "[f]ailure of plaintiff to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)." Id.

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 Local Rules, and that Wells Fargo'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 December 14, 2011 on Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 8, is vacated; and

2. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for hearing on February 1, 2012, is vacated.*fn1

IT IS FURTHER 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 Local Rules;

2. Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 8, be denied as moot; and

3. The Clerk 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


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.