Opinion
23-cv-01659-TLT
07-06-2023
SCOTT BEUTEL, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO, N.A., et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED; ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO REMAND RE: ECF NOS. 8, 11
TRINA L. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 4, 2023, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Scott Buetel's (“Plaintiff”) complaint. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff's response or opposition to the motion to dismiss was due by May 18, 2023. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response or opposition to the pending motion to dismiss by the deadline.
Given Plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion to dismiss by the deadline, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause why Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) should not be granted as unopposed. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by July 14, 2023. If Plaintiff seeks to file an untimely opposition brief, he must submit a request to do so showing good cause for his failure to comply with the deadline required by the Local Rules and must submit his proposed opposition brief with the request. If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this Order to Show Cause by the deadline, the Court shall grant Defendant's motion to dismiss as unopposed without further notice to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff seeks to file an untimely opposition brief, and if the Court grants that request, it shall set a new deadline for Defendant to file a reply brief. Accordingly, the motion hearing set for August 15, 2023, is VACATED and will be reset by the Court if necessary.
Finally, on May 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action back to Monterey County Superior Court. ECF No. 11. Defendant filed a timely response to Plaintiff's motion to remand. ECF No. 13. However, Plaintiff did not file a timely reply.
On June 5, 2023, this case was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins to the undersigned. ECF No. 17. The clerk's reassignment order notified the parties that “[a]ll hearing dates presently scheduled before the current magistrate judge are vacated and should be re-noticed for hearing before the judge to whom the case is reassigned.” Id.
On June 21, 2023, the Court ordered, in part, that Plaintiff re-notice his motion to remand by June 30, 2023, if Plaintiff wanted the Court to address his pending motion to remand. ECF No. 20. The Court advised Plaintiff that “[i]f such notice is not filed by June 30, 2023, the Court will deem the [motion to remand as] withdrawn.” Id. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not renoticed his motion to remand. Accordingly, the Court's previous order stands, and Plaintiff's motion to remand is deemed withdrawn without prejudice.
This Order terminates docket number 11.
IT IS SO ORDERED.