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.

Christopher Stevens et al v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. et al

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


March 1, 2012

CHRISTOPHER STEVENS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING INC. ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 19, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The motion was noticed to be heard on February 29, 2012. (Dkt. No. 7.)

On February 17, 2012, because plaintiffs had not filed either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion, the undersigned continued the hearing on the motion to March 14, 2012 and directed plaintiffs to file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than February 29, 2012. (Dkt. No. 10.) Plaintiffs were advised that failure to file an opposition would be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion and would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Although the deadlines have now passed, the court docket reflects that plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. In light of plaintiffs' 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 defendants' motion to dismiss be denied as moot. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of March 14, 2012 on defendants' motion to dismiss is vacated; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based on plaintiffs' failure to prosecute the action and to comply with court orders and Local Rules;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 7) be denied as moot; and

3. The Clerk of Court 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

(14) 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." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20120301

© 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.