(PS) Khudoy et al v. Washington Mutual Bank FA et al, No. 2:2009cv02569 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/15/2009 ORDERING the hearing date of 1/6/2010 on dfts' motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 7, is vacated; and the status (pretrial scheduling) conference currentl y set for hearing on 1/13/2010, is vacated. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based on plaintiffs failure to prosecute the action; Dfts' motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 7, be denied as moot; and the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. Objections due w/in 14 days.(Matson, R)

Download PDF

(PS) Khudoy et al v. Washington Mutual Bank FA et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 VLADIMIR KHUDOY; LYUDMILA KHUDOY; No. CIV S-09-2569 MCE EFB PS 11 Plaintiffs, 12 vs. 13 14 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA; CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY, and Does 1-250, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 16 Defendants. _________________________________/ 17 This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 18 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On September 19 14, 2009, defendants removed this action from Placer County Superior Court based on federal 20 question jurisdiction. Dckt. No. 1. On September 22, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss 21 plaintiffs’ complaint, and noticed the motion for hearing on November 18, 2009. Dckt. No. 7. 22 Because plaintiffs failed to file a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, on 23 November 10, 2009, the court continued the November 18 hearing to January 6, 2010; ordered 24 plaintiffs to show cause, in writing, no later than December 9, 2009, why sanctions should not be 25 imposed on them for their failure to timely file a response to defendants’ motion; and directed 26 plaintiffs to file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 than December 9, 2009. Dckt. No. 11. The order further provided that “[f]ailure of plaintiffs to 2 file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and may 3 result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. 4 Civ. P. 41(b).” Id. at 2. 5 The deadline to respond has passed and the court docket reflects that plaintiffs have not 6 responded to the order to show cause nor filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 7 defendants’ motion. In light of plaintiffs’ failures, the undersigned will recommend that this 8 action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as 9 moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The hearing date of January 6, 2010 on defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 7, is 12 13 14 vacated; and 2. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for hearing on January 13, 2010, is vacated.1 15 It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 16 1. This action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based on 17 plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute the action; 18 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 7, be denied as moot; and 19 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 21 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 22 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 23 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 24 1 25 26 As a result, the parties are not required to submit status reports as provided in the September 15, 2009 order. See Dckt. No. 3 at 2. However, if the recommendation of dismissal herein is not adopted by the district judge, the undersigned will reschedule the status conference and require the parties to submit status reports. 2 1 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 2 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 3 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 DATED: December 15, 2009. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.