(PS) Miller v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al, No. 2:2016cv01593 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/3/16: VACATING hearing re 6 Motion to Dismiss and DENYING as MOOT 13 Request to Appear by Phone. RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders and the court's local rules. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Washington, S) Modified on 10/3/2016 (Washington, S).

Download PDF
(PS) Miller v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HERBERT MILLER, 11 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-1593-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., U.S. BANK, N.A. as Trustee for LSF 9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, MTC FINANCIAL, INC. d/b/a/ TRUSTEE CORPORATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 On July 15, 2016, defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank filed a motion to dismiss this action 19 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), and noticed the motion for 20 hearing on August 17, 2016. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition or statement 21 of non-opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the hearing was continued to October 5, 2016, and 22 plaintiff was ordered, by no later than September 21, 2016, to file an opposition or statement of 23 non-opposition to the motion and to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his 24 failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff was 25 also admonished that failure to file an opposition would be deemed a statement of non-opposition 26 to the granting of defendant’s motion, and could result in a recommendation that this action be 27 dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or failure to comply with court orders and the court’s local 28 rules. Id. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motion, nor has he responded to the court’s order to show cause. 3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, 4 currently set for October 5, 2016, is VACATED. Defense counsel’s request to appear 5 telephonically (ECF No. 13) is denied as moot. 6 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 7 to comply with court orders and the court’s local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Cal. E.D. L.R. 8 110. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 12 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 13 and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 14 to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); 15 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 DATED: October 3, 2016. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.