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.

Janell Scott-Harman v. First Franklin A Division of National City Bank of Indiana

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION


January 9, 2012

JANELL SCOTT-HARMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FIRST FRANKLIN A DIVISION OF NATIONAL CITY BANK OF INDIANA, ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF'S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFF'S TITLE; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [21] [Filed 12/08/11]

Presently before the Court is Defendant First Franklin Corporation's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff, Janell Scott-Harman's ("Plaintiff") Complaint. (Dkt. No. 21.) Because Defendant has not filed any opposition, and for the reasons discussed in Defendant's papers, the Court GRANTS the motion.

Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that "[t]he failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion." C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.

The hearing on Defendant's motion was set for January 23, 2012. Plaintiff's opposition was therefore due by January 2, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's March 22, 2011, Standing Order (Dkt. No. 10), because January 2, 2012, was a national holiday, Plaintiff's opposition was due the preceding Friday, December 30, 2011. Standing Order ¶ 5(a). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, nor any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance. Plaintiff's failure to oppose may therefore be deemed consent to the granting of Defendant's Motion. Nevertheless, the Court has carefully considered Defendant's arguments in support, and for the reasons discussed in Defendant's papers, hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. The January 23, 2012, hearing on this matter is VACATED and no appearances are necessary.

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss all claims against Defendant with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120109

© 1992-2012 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.