Oliver et al v. U.S. Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
37
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/9/2012. (lhklc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/9/2012: # 1 certificate of mailing) (mpb, COURT STAFF).
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
U.S. BANK, N.A.; DOWNEY SAVINGS AND )
LOAN ASSOCIATION, F.A.; AND DSL
)
SERVICE COMPANY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
FRANK OLIVER AND ANDREA OLIVER,
Case No.: 11-CV-4300-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX
PARTE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
WITH PREJUDICE
17
On August 7, 2012, the Defendants sent an email to Courtroom Deputy Martha Parker
18
Brown. The email set forth the following facts: (1) on June 22, 2012, the Court dismissed all of the
19
Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice (Dkt. No. 34 at 15); (2) the Court gave the Plaintiffs’ 21 days
20
to file an amended complaint, and ordered that “[f]ailure to meet this deadline will result in a
21
dismissal with prejudice” (id.); (3) on June 26, 2012, 17 days before the deadline to file an
22
amended complaint, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice, pursuant to
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) (Dkt. No. 35); and (4) as of August 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs
24
had not amended their complaint. Defendants concluded their email by asking, “[w]ill the Court be
25
issuing an order dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice soon?” The Defendants’ email is a
26
prohibited ex parte communication under Civil Local Rule 11-4(c). Accordingly, rather than
27
responding to only the Defendants, the Court files this response publicly to both parties.
28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-4300-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1
The Court will not issue an order dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, or take
2
any other action with respect to this case because this case has already been dismissed. See Dkt.
3
No. 35.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated: August 9, 2012
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-4300-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
]]>
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?
