Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00589-H-JMA

Document 32

Filed 07/16/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COPERNICO MAMERTO, Plaintiff, vs. CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING and SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendants. Defendant Citi Residential Lending ("Citi") filed a motion to dismiss on June 25, 2008. (Doc. No. 30.) The motion was noticed for a hearing on July 28, 2008. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or requested an extension of time. Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(e)(2), opposition papers are due 14 calendar days prior to the noticed hearing. The Court exercises its discretion to submit this motion on the papers without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). Accordingly, the Court vacates the hearing set for July 28, 2008. /// /// /// ///
-108cv589

CASE NO. 08-CV-0589-H (JMA) ORDER SUBMITTING MOTION TO DISMISS BY CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING; AND NOTICE OF POSSIBLE DISMISSAL

Case 3:08-cv-00589-H-JMA

Document 32

Filed 07/16/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court cautions Plaintiff that failure to oppose Citi's motion may result in dismissal of his claims against Citi. The Court also reminds Plaintiff that it has not received any opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by Specialized Loan Servicing on June 12, 2008. (See Doc. Nos. 25, 31.) The Court has discretion to grant additional time upon a showing of good cause, but Plaintiff has not made such a request. If Plaintiff does not oppose either motion, the net result may be dismissal of the entire action, either based on the merits of the claims or on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute his case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 16, 2008 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COPIES TO: All parties of record.

-2-

08cv589