Paula Whiterock v. Old Republic Default Management Services et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01033

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff's Show Cause Response due by 8/14/2015. Motion Hearing on {{36}} Motion to Dismiss continued to 9/17/2015 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Case Management Statement due by 10/27/2015. Case Management C onference set for 11/3/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/27/2015. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/29/2015: # {{1}} Certificate/Proof of Service)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 PAULA WHITEROCK, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01033-KAW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER v. CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION 9 TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2015; OLD REPUBLIC DEFAULT CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 10 MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al., CONFERENCE 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 36 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff Paula Whiterock, proceeding pro se, filed this mortgage 14 case against Defendants Old Republic Default Management Services and Manufacturers and 15 Traders Trust Company ("M&T"). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1.) On May 29, 2015, the Court 16 dismissed Plaintiff's initial complaint with leave to amend. 17 On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint. On July 2, 2015, M&T filed 18 a motion to dismiss, which was joined by co-defendant Old Republic. (Dkt. Nos. 36 & 38.) 19 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff's opposition was due on July 20, 2015. To date, 20 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 21 Accordingly, by no later than August 14, 2015, the Court orders Plaintiff to (1) show 22 cause why her case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and (2) file either an 23 opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. The 24 response to this order to show cause and the opposition should be filed as separate documents. 25 Failure to timely file both documents may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to 26 prosecute. See Judge Westmore's General Standing Order ¶ 22 ("The failure of the opposing party 27 to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute 28 consent to the granting of the motion"). The Court notes that Plaintiff similarly failed to timely 1 respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss the initial complaint. (See 4/7/2015 Order to Show 2 Cause, Dkt. No. 20.) Going forward, any failure to timely respond to the pending litigation 3 without seeking an extension from the opposing parties by way of a formal stipulation—or by 4 filing for leave of court if consent cannot be obtained—to extend her time to respond will not be 5 treated so favorably, and may result in the dismissal of the case with prejudice. 6 To aid in her compliance with this order, Plaintiff may wish to consult a manual the court 7 has adopted to assist pro se litigants in presenting their case. This manual, and other free 8 information, is available online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also 9 contact the Federal Pro Bono Project's Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants— by calling 10 (415) 782-8982 to make an appointment to have any remaining questions answered. 11 Additionally, the August 20, 2015 hearing on the motion to dismiss is continued to 12 September 17, 2015 at U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California at 11:00 a.m. in Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Courtroom 4. The case management conference scheduled for August 18, 2015 is continued to 14 November 3, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4. Case management conference statements are due 15 on or before October 27, 2015. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: July 27, 2015 __________________________________ 18 KANDIS A. WESTMORE 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2