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.

Adelidia Cortez v. Ing Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 4, 2012

ADELIDIA CORTEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ING BANK, FSB; INTERGRATED LENDER SERVICES; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING TO HAVE LEGAL, EQUITABLE, LIEN, AND ESTATE AGAINST THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1503 DUBUQUE STREET, OCEANSIDE, CA 92058; DOES 1 TO 50 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge:

ORDER

On July 7, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint in San Diego County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A). On July 12, 2011, ING Bank, FSB removed the action to this Court, alleging federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). On July 27, 2011, ING Bank, FSB filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 4). On September 13, 2011, the Court granted the motion and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice as to ING Bank, FSB. (ECF No. 6).

On March 26, 2012, the Court issued an Order stating that, "[s]ince September 13, 2011, the docket reflects that no action has been taken by any party in this case.... It appearing to the Court that dismissal for want of prosecution may be appropriate in this case, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE [by April 30, 2012] as to why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.... If Plaintiff does not respond, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice." To date, Plaintiff has not filed any response to the Court's Order to Show Cause.

Pursuant to Local Rule 41.1, "[a]ctions or proceedings which have been pending in this court for more than six months, without any proceeding or discovery having been taken therein during such period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the court for want of prosecution." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 41.1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply... with a court order," the plaintiff's claim may be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the March 26, 2012 Order to Show Cause, and Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action for over six months.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

United States District Judge WILLIAM Q. HAYES

20120504

© 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.