Barbara Lynn Hallack v. Chase Bank, NA et al
Filing
8
ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 6 Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Case. The hearing on Defendant's motion was set for September 20, 2011. Plaintiff' ;s opposition was therefore due by August 30, 2011. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, or any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance. Accordingly, the court deems Plaintiff's failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion to dismiss, and GRANTS the motion. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (lom)
<![CDATA[
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BARBARA LYNN HALLACK,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
v.
CHASE BANK, NA FORMERLY
KNOWN AS WASHINGTON MUTUAL
BANK, FA; FIDELITY NATIONAL
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
"MERS",
Defendants.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 11-06325 DDP (JCx)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
[Motion filed on 8/15/11]
19
20
Presently before the court is the Motion to Dismiss
21
Plaintiff’s Complaint filed by Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
22
and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
23
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, the court GRANTS the motion.
24
Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an
25
opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least twenty-
26
one (21) days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion.
27
C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-9.
28
“[t]he failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file
Because
Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 provides that
1
it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or
2
denial of the motion.”
3
C.D. CAL. L.R. 7-12.
The hearing on Defendant’s motion was set for September 20,
4
2011.
5
As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed an
6
opposition, or any other filing that could be construed as a
7
request for a continuance.
8
Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion to
9
dismiss, and GRANTS the motion.
Plaintiff’s opposition was therefore due by August 30, 2011.
Accordingly, the court deems
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
Dated: September 14, 2011
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
