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.

Oscar Valero v. Bank of America Home Loans

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


August 16, 2012

OSCAR VALERO; BLANCA VALERO, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 7, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, which is noticed to be heard on August 22, 2012. Dckt. No. 6.

Although Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by August 8, 2012, plaintiffs did not file their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss until August 14, 2012.*fn1 Dckt. No. 7. In addition to the tardiness of plaintiffs' opposition, the opposition does not respond to many of the specific arguments made in the motion to dismiss. Id. However, in light of plaintiffs' pro se status, plaintiffs will be given an opportunity to file a revised opposition. In that revised opposition, plaintiffs shall respond to each of the specific arguments made in the motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 6, is continued to September 12, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24.

2. On or before August 29, 2012, plaintiffs shall file a revised opposition to the motion in which plaintiffs respond to the specific arguments set forth in the motion to dismiss.

3. Failure of plaintiffs to do so may be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the motion, and may result in a recommendation that the motion be granted and/or that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules.

4. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs' revised opposition on or before September 5, 2012.

5. The status conference currently scheduled for September 5, 2012, is rescheduled for December 19, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24.

6. On or before December 5, 2012, the parties shall file status reports addressing the matters referenced in the court's April 26, 2012 order.

SO ORDERED.


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.