Welsh et al v. America's Servicing Company Assets LLC et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02166

ORDER Directing Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendants' Motion. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 06/30/2015.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 MAURICE R. WELSH and No. C 15-2166 CW 4 PAULA D. WELSH, ORDER DIRECTING 5 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO 6 v. DEFENDANTS' MOTION (Docket No. 15) 7 AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY ASSETS LLC, et al. 8 Defendants. 9 ________________________________/ 10 On August 5, 2014, Plaintiffs Maurice and Paula Welsh brought For the Northern District of California 11 this mortgage-related action in the Superior Court of California United States District Court 12 against Defendants America's Servicing Company Assets LLC, et al. 13 On May 13, 2015, Defendants removed the action from the Superior 14 Court to this Court. On June 3, 2015, Defendants filed a motion 15 to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that 16 motion was due on June 17, 2015. On June 24, 2015, the case was 17 related to Case No. 13-cv-4750 and reassigned to The undersigned. 18 As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not filed an 19 opposition as required by Local Civil Rule 7-3(a). 20 "Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper 21 ground for dismissal. . . . Before dismissing the action, the 22 district court is required to weigh several factors: (1) the 23 public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 24 court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to 25 the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 26 cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 27 sanctions." Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 28 1 The public's interest in expeditious resolution and the 2 Court's need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. 3 However, the risk of prejudice to Defendants is slight. 4 Furthermore, Plaintiffs are pro se and, as such, the Court finds 5 that a dismissal at this time is too harsh a sanction. 6 Accordingly, Defendants must immediately serve their motion 7 to dismiss on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are directed to respond to 8 Defendants' motion within seven days of the receipt of the motion, 9 and no later than fourteen days of the date of this order. 10 Defendants shall file their reply to the motion seven days after For the Northern District of California 11 Plaintiffs file their response. The motion will be decided on the United States District Court 12 papers. 13 If Plaintiffs fail to respond to Defendants' motion, this 14 action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 15 prosecute. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: 06/30/2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2