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.

Rafael A. Martinez v. Wells Fargo Bank

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


February 9, 2012

RAFAEL A. MARTINEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER

On February 1, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 18 after Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss. 19 ECF No. 19. On February 8, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel filed a 20 declaration explaining that his failure to file an opposition was 21 due to a mistake and that recent health problems have inhibited his 22 ability to work. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff's counsel also stated 23 that, with the Court's permission, he is prepared to file an 24 opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss immediately. Id. 25

While the Court does not condone such failure to comply with Court deadlines, it finds that the actions of Plaintiff's counsel 27 do not warrant dismissal of the action at this time. Accordingly, 28 the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file his response to Defendant's motion to dismiss within four calendar days of this Order. Failure 2 to do so will result in dismissal of this action for want of 3 prosecution and failure to comply with a Court order. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, Defendant may file a reply to the opposition 5 not more than seven days after the opposition has been filed.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is submitted for decision on the 7 papers, no hearing or oral argument is required. The Case 8 Management Conference scheduled for February 24, 2012 is hereby 9 continued to March 30, 2012. The parties are to file one Joint Case Management Conference Statement seven days prior to the conference.

The Court warns Plaintiff that failure to comply with Court deadlines in the future may result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20120209

© 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.