UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 28, 2012
MICHAEL CANNON, ET AL.
FIRST OHIO BANC & LENDING, INC., ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge
Debra Plato Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Dismissing Action With Prejudice
On February 6, 2012, Plaintiffs proceeding pro se filed a "Petition for Validation of Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, Securitization Documents, or Release the Claim." On March 20, 2012, this Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Sun Trust Bank. (Docket No. 16.) On May 1, 2012, the Court granted OneWest Bank's motion to dismiss, but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend, consistent with its Order, no later than May 25, 2012. It noted that failure to file an amended pleading by that date would waive Plaintiffs' right to do so. (Docket No. 27)
In both orders, the Court advised Plaintiffs of the existence of and services offered by the "Pro Se Clinic."
On June 5, counsel for OneWest Bank filed a pleading noting that Plaintiffs had failed to file an amended complaint. On June 6, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution requiring that Plaintiffs show cause not later than June 26 why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
On June 26, Plaintiffs filed a mostly unintelligible "Request to File Conditional Acceptance Motion (Attached) as of May 25, 2012." Plaintiffs claim they delivered a copy of the attached document to the Court by UPS on May 25 and contend it was "apparently lost." They attach a shipping receipt and proof of delivery.
Plaintiffs' "Conditional Acceptance" states that it "conditionally accepts" the Court's order granting OneWest's motion to dismiss "upon proof of claim that" and then lists mostly unintelligible conditions, facts, etc. The "Conditional Acceptance" is neither an amended Petition or Complaint nor an appropriate response to the Order to Show
This action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.