Tran et al v. Washington Mutual Bank et al
Filing
25
ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/1/2010 ORDERING pltfs' counsel to SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not issue for failure to comply w/ the LR, including dismissal of this case and/or monetary sanction of $250.00, respons e due no later than 3/8/2010; the hearing on dfts' Motion to Dismiss is CONTINUED to 3/22/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; pltfs' to serve their opposition or statement of non-opposition on or b efore 3/8/2010, dfts may file their reply no later than 3/15/2010; a further status conference is set for 4/26/2010 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; this case is NOT REFERRED to VDRP; pltf's 23 amended cmplt is DISREGARDED.(Yin, K)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiffs in this case bring numerous claims arising out of their home loan and mortgage. On January 19, 2010, JPMorgan Chase Defendants. / v. ORDER WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, et al., Plaintiffs, CONG MINH TRAN AND PHUONG HUYNH, NO. CIV. S-09-3277 LKK/DAD
Bank, N.A., and Bank of America (as successors to defendants Washington Mutual Bank LaSalle Bank, N.A., respectively) filed a motion to dismiss, which was noticed for hearing on March 8, 2010. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiffs were obliged to file either an opposition or notice of non-opposition no later than February 22, 2010. Plaintiffs failed to file either document.
Also on February 22, plaintiffs failed to appear at the 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
scheduled status conference. However, prior to the scheduled status conference, plaintiffs and some defendants filed a stipulation for referral to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program ("VDRP") pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 271. However, not all served defendants stipulated to referral to VDRP as required in E.D. Cal. Local Rule 271(b)(4). Accordingly, this court does not refer this case to VDRP. On February 19, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, perhaps in an attempt to moot the pending motions. complaint is untimely. This amended
Pursuant to the amendments to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15 that took effect on December 1, 2009, Rule 15(a)(1) now provides that: A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In this case both the complaint and the Rule 12 motions were served after the effective date of the amendment, so it is clear that the amended rule applies. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 16). The Rule 12 motion was (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.
filed on January 19, 2010, and the latest service of the complaint was completed on December 8, 2009. (Id.). a matter of course thus expired before The right to amend as February 19, 2010.
Accordingly, the court disregards plaintiff's amended complaint. Based on the above, the court ORDERS as follows: 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1.
Counsel for plaintiffs is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not issue for failure to comply with the local rules, including dismissal of this case and/or monetary sanction of $250. Counsel is cautioned
that the fact that she represents clients in a large number of similar cases is not good cause for failing to comply with the local rules. Mortgage, No. 2:09-cv-3196, C.f. Mensah v. GMAC Response to
Plaintiff's
Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 38 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010). Counsel shall file a response to this order to
show cause no later than March 8, 2010. 2. Hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) is CONTINUED to March 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. 3. Plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition or statement of non-opposition on or before March 8, 2010. Defendants may file and serve a reply no later than March 15, 2010. 4. A further status conference is set for April 26, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. 5. 6. This case is not referred to VDRP. Plaintiff's disregarded. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 1, 2010. amended complaint, Dkt. No. 23, is
3
]]>
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?
