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.

Karim Akil, An Individual; Amy Schloemann, An Individual v. Carrington Mortgage Services

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


June 12, 2012

KARIM AKIL, AN INDIVIDUAL; AMY SCHLOEMANN, AN INDIVIDUAL,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE COMPANY; ATLANTIC & PACIFIC FORECLOSURE SERVICES, LLC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS' TITLE THERETO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

On May 8, 2012, Defendants Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC and Atlantic & Pacific Foreclosure Services, LCC filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, to which Plaintiffs did not file an opposition brief or a statement of non-opposition as required by Local Rule 230(c).

Therefore, Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause ("OSC") in a writing to be filed no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 20, 2012, why sanctions should not be imposed, including dismissal of their claims, for their failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c). If a hearing on the OSC is requested in the response to the OSC, it will be convened at 9:00 a.m. on July 16, 2012. Further, if Plaintiffs fail to respond to the OSC and/or to file an opposition brief or statement of non-opposition, this failure may be construed as Plaintiffs' concession that they cannot cure what Defendants contend are defects in their claims, and an order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice may be entered. See Friends of Roeding Park v. City of Fresno, No. 1:11-cv-02070, 2012 WL 1155652, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2012) ("Plaintiffs[] were warned that their failure to comply with the local rules may warrant dismissal with prejudice . . . .").

Should Defendants elect to file a reply to Plaintiffs' opposition, it shall be filed no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 27, 2012. The hearing on the motion is rescheduled from June 18, 2012, to July 16, 2012, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

20120612

© 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.