Spano v. MortgageIT, Inc. et al
Filing
21
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/10/11 ORDERING that Plaintiff's counsel, Paul R. Bartleson, shall show cause in writing within TEN (10) days of the date of this order why the court should not dismiss this action for lack of prosecuti on. If Mr. Bartleson does not respond within TEN (10) days, the Court hereby dismisses this entire matter, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall close the case. It is further ordered that within TEN (10) days of this Order, Paul R. Bartleson shall either pay sanctions of $500.00 to the Clerk of the Court, or submit a statement of good cause explaining his second failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c). (Becknal, R)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MARK V. SPANO,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MORTGAGEIT, INC.; U.S. BANK
)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE )
FOR CSMC MORTGAGE-BACKED PASS)
THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES
)
2006-2; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; )
NDEX WEST, LLC; JEVON FELIX
)
HINK; DAVID MEREDITH WILLIAMS;
)
VERDEO FUNDING, INC.; and DOES 1 )
through 20, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No. 2:10-CV-02550 JAM-EFB
ORDER GRANTING VERDEO’S MOTION
TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
PROSECUTION PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE 41 (A)
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Verdeo Funding
21
22
Inc.’s (“Verdeo”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution
23
Pursuant to Federal Rule 41(A) (Doc. #19).
24
(“Plaintiff”) does not oppose the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
25
Prosecution.1
Plaintiff Mark Spano
26
27
28
1
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was originally
scheduled for November 16, 2011.
1
1
Not only did Plaintiff not file an opposition or statement of
2
non-opposition to Verdeo’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
3
Prosecution, Plaintiff’s counsel Paul Bartleson’s previously failed
4
to oppose Defendant MortgageIt’s Motion to Dismiss.
5
18, 2010 this Court ordered Mr. Bartleson to pay sanctions of $250
6
to the Clerk of the Court or submit a statement of good cause
7
explaining his failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c) which
8
requires a party responding to a motion to file either an
9
opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition, no less
On November
10
than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed hearing date (Doc.
11
#13).
12
January 27, 2011, this Court ordered Mr. Bartleson to appear for a
13
hearing to show cause why he failed to comply with the Court’s
14
previous Order (Doc. #15).
15
having problems managing his practice (Doc. #15).
16
that declaration, Mr. Bartleson has not taken any further action on
17
this case.
18
Mr. Bartleson did not respond to the Court’s Order.
On
Mr. Bartleson responded that he was
Since filing
Local Rule 110 authorizes the Court to impose sanctions for
19
“failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules.”
20
Therefore, because Mr. Bartleson failed to comply with Local Rule
21
239(c) by not responding to Verdeo’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
22
Prosecution, the Court will sanction Plaintiff’s counsel, Paul R.
23
Bartleson, $500.00 unless he shows good cause for his failure to
24
comply with the Local Rules.
25
26
27
28
ORDER
After carefully considering the papers submitted in this
matter, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff’s counsel, Paul R.
2
1
Bartleson, shall show cause in writing within TEN (10) days of the
2
date of this order why the court should not dismiss this action for
3
lack of prosecution.
4
(10) days, the Court hereby dismisses this entire matter, with
5
prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
6
case.
7
If Mr. Bartleson does not respond within TEN
The Clerk shall close the
It is further ordered that within TEN (10) days of this Order,
8
Paul R. Bartleson shall either (1) pay sanctions of $500.00 to the
9
Clerk of the Court, or (2) submit a statement of good cause
10
11
12
explaining his second failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 10, 2011
____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?
