Camillo et al v. Wausau Mortgage Corporation et al
Filing
31
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 8/22/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
FRANKLIN S. CAMILLO, et al.,
No. C 12-03132 JSW
10
Plaintiffs,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
11
12
v.
WAUSAU MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et
al.,
13
Defendants.
14
/
15
16
On July 11, 2012, Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., U.S.
17
Bank, N.A., Capital One, N.A., CCB LIBOR Series 2005-2 Trust, Chevy Chase Funding LLC
18
Mortgage Back Certificates, Series 2005-2, Jeffrey R. Huston, and Joseph P. Eger filed a
19
motion to dismiss, which is noticed for a hearing before this Court on September 14, 2012.
20
Defendants served that motion on Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, by mail on July 11,
21
2012. Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rules (“Local Rules”) 7-3(a) and 5-5(a),
22
Plaintiffs’ opposition brief was due on July 30, 2012. On July 16, 2012, Defendant T.D.
23
Service Company filed a motion to dismiss, which also is noticed for a hearing on September
24
14, 2012, and it served a copy of the motion on Plaintiffs by mail on that same date. Pursuant to
25
Local Rules 7-3(a) and 5-5(a), Plaintiffs’ opposition brief to this motion was due on August 2,
26
2012.
27
28
Plaintiffs did not file opposition briefs to either motion, and on August 6, 2012, the
Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
1
On August 17, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a notice of their intent to dismiss this case.
2
Pursuant to Rule 41, a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order, “by filing (i) a
3
notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary
4
judgment; or (ii) by a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R.
5
Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Defendants have not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
6
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES this case without prejudice.1
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated: August 22, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pursuant to Rule 41(b), “if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or
state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an
adjudication on the merits.” Although Plaintiffs had filed a similar action, it appears that
case centered on another parcel of real property than the real property at issue in this case.
Compare Camillo v. US Bank, No. 11-CV-5228, Complaint ¶ 6 with Camillo v. Wausau
Mortgage, et al., No. 12-CV-3132, Complaint, ¶ 1.
1
2
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
FRANKLIN S. CAMILLO, ET AL. et al,
Case Number: CV12-03132 JSW
6
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
7
v.
8
WAUSAU MORTGAGE
9 CORPORATION, ET AL. et al,
Defendant.
/
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
13
That on August 22, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
14 placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter
listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an
15 inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
Celina Salazar Camillo
18 Franklin A Camillo
510 Vista Spring Court
19 Milpitas, CA 95035
20
21 Dated: August 22, 2012
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk
]]>
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?
