(PS) Mojarro v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al, No. 2:2010cv01439 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/21/2010. It is ORDERED that the hearing date of 9/22/2010 on defendants' 9 Motion to Dismiss and the Status Conference currently set for 10/20/2010 are VA CATED; it is also RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 41(b) based on plaintiff's failure to prosecute action, defendants' 9 Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot, and Clerk be directed to close this case. Within 14 days after being served with these F/Rs, any party my file written Objections with Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF

(PS) Mojarro v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 YOLANDA A. MOJARRO, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-1439 MCE EFB PS vs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY; LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY; DOES 1 through 1000, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. _________________________________/ 17 18 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 10, 20 2010, defendants removed the action to this court from Sacramento County Superior Court on 21 the ground that plaintiff’s complaint alleges federal claims, and on June 21, 2010, moved to 22 dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Dckt. Nos. 2, 9. Defendants noticed the motion for hearing on 23 August 4, 2010. Dckt. No. 9. On July 27, 2010, because plaintiff had not filed either an 24 opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion, the court continued the hearing on 25 defendants’ motion to dismiss to September 22, 2010; ordered plaintiff to show cause, in writing, 26 no later than September 8, 2010, why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to timely 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion; and directed plaintiff 2 to file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 3 September 8, 2010. Dckt. No. 11. The court further stated that “[f]ailure of plaintiff to file an 4 opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and may result 5 in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 41(b).” Id. 7 Although the deadlines have now passed, the court docket reflects that plaintiff has not 8 filed a response to the order to show cause, an opposition to defendants’ motion, or a statement 9 of non-opposition to the motion. In light of plaintiff’s failures, the undersigned recommends that 10 this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied 11 as moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The hearing date of September 22, 2010 on defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 14 15 16 9, is vacated; and 2. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for hearing on October 20, 2010, is vacated.1 17 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 18 1. This action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based on 19 plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action; 20 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 9, be denied as moot; and 21 3. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 1 25 26 As a result, the parties are not required to submit status reports as provided in the June 11, 2010 order. See Dckt. No. 4 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 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 4 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 5 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 DATED: September 21, 2010. 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.