UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 17, 2012
TITLE EUGENIA MANCERA-CELESTIN, ET AL.
BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
On September 19, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, among other reasons, for failure to file an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. # 9]. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by the October 4, 2011 deadline. On October 21, 2011, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute [Doc. # 11]. After the deadline to respond to the OSC had passed, Plaintiffs requested additional time to file an amended complaint [Doc. # 12]. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs an extension of time until December 5, 2011 to file an amended complaint. The Court cautioned Plaintiffs that this action would be dismissed if they failed to meet the December 5, 2011 deadline.
On November 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled "Substitution of Trustee, Deed of Full Re-Conveyance," asserting that they sent a promissory note in the amount of $7.7 million to Defendants purportedly to discharge a debt of $2 million [Doc. # 14]. It is not clear what the purpose of this document is. Therefore, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs shall file their response by no later than January 27, 2012. Failure to adequately respond to this Order will result in the dismissal of this action.
Plaintiffs may discharge this Order by filing a notice stating unequivocally that they intend their "Substitution of Trustee" to serve as their first amended complaint. In that case, Defendants shall have 15 days thereafter to file a responsive pleading.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.