(PS) Mendez v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc. et al, No. 2:2012cv01491 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/18/12: The findings and recommendations issued October 30, 2012, 33 are vacated. Defendants' motions to dismiss 5 , 13 , 22 , & 26 , having been rendered moot by plaintiff's voluntary dismissal, are denied. This action is closed. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PS) Mendez v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc. et al Doc. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIA VICTORIA MENDEZ, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-01491 JAM DAD PS v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING INC, et al., ORDER 14 15 Defendants. 16 / 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on June 4, 2012, by paying 18 the required filing fee and filing a complaint. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter has been referred to the 19 undersigned for all purposes encompassed by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 In an order issued October 10, 2012, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to show 21 cause in writing no later than October 24, 2012, as to why sanctions should not be imposed due 22 to her failure to file timely opposition or non-opposition to the motions to dismiss filed by 23 defendants and for failing to appear at the properly noticed hearing of those motions. (Doc. No. 24 31 at 3.) 25 Believing that plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s October 10, 2012 order, 26 on October 29, 2012 the undersigned signed findings and recommendations recommending that 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 defendants’ motions to dismiss be deemed unopposed and, so deemed, be granted and that 2 plaintiff’s claims against all defendants be dismissed with prejudice due to lack of prosecution. 3 (Doc. No. 33.) However, also on October 29, 2012 that same day, the Clerk of the Court 4 docketed a notice of voluntary dismissal filed by plaintiff on October 26, 2012 which was dated 5 October 24, 2012. (Doc. No. 32.) 6 7 No defendant has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of this action is proper pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 9 1. The findings and recommendations issued October 30, 2012, (Doc. No. 33) are 10 11 12 13 14 vacated; 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 5, 13, 22, & 26), having been rendered moot by plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal, are denied; and 3. This action is closed. DATED: November 18, 2012. 15 16 17 18 DAD:6 Ddad1\orders.pro se\mendez1491.voldism 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.