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.

Felipe Tapia v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 12, 2012

FELIPE TAPIA
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Andrea Keifer Not Reported

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE JS-6

On November 23, 2011, Plaintiff Felipe Tapia filed this action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, challenging a notice of foreclosure served on him by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank. Notice of Removal, Exh. A, Dkt. 1. On December 23, 2011, Defendant removed the action to this Court, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1. Defendant moved to dismiss. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff did not oppose. The Court granted the motion to dismiss, with leave to amend in part, on March 5, 2012. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff made no appearance at the March 5, 2012 hearing, nor at the scheduling conference held concurrently. The Court ordered that

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before March 15, 2012. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely amended complaint, Defendant shall provide notice to the Court of the failure to amend and the case will be dismissed for three reasons: Plaintiff's failure to oppose the original motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order regarding Rule 16, and Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order regarding amendment. at p.2. Plaintiff failed to amend timely. Defendant provided the required notice on April 11, 2012. Dkt. 11. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and for those stated in the Court's March 5, 2012 order, Plaintiff's action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer ak

20120412

© 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.