-JFM (PS) Costelo v. Pro30 Funding et al, No. 2:2010cv02049 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 05/25/11 ORDERING that the 07/23/11 hearing on the dfts' 11 , 12 Motions to Dismiss is VACATED and RECOMMENDING that the 11 , 12 Motions to Dismiss be granted and this action dismissed. Objections to these F&Rs due w/i 14 days; referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
-JFM (PS) Costelo v. Pro30 Funding et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CELSO COSTELO, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV 2:10-cv-2049-KJM-JFM (PS) vs. PRO30 FUNDING, et al., 14 ORDER AND Defendants. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 17 On January 24, 2011, defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. filed a motion to 18 dismiss; and on January 27, 2011, defendant Placer Title Company filed a motion to dismiss. 19 Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be 20 filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that “[n]o party 21 will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to 22 the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Id. 23 Plaintiff has not filed opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff’s 24 failure to oppose should therefore be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the 25 motion. 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss, set for July 23, 2011, is vacated; and 3 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s January 24, 2011 5 motion to dismiss be granted; 6 7 2. Defendant Placer Title Company’s January 27, 2011 motion to dismiss be granted; and 8 3. This action be dismissed. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 11 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 14 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 15 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: May 25, 2011. 18 19 20 21 /014;cost2049.46.dm 22 23 24 25 26 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.