Opinion
22-cv-05490-WHO
02-22-2023
AARON PAPAZIAN, Plaintiff, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On November 11, 2022, I granted the motion to dismiss of defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), dismissing all claims asserted against Chase with prejudice. Dkt. No. 22. I also granted the motion to dismiss of defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), but granted plaintiff limited leave to amend to attempt to allege sufficient facts in support of his claims against SPS sounding in fraud and for violation of California's Homeowners Bill of Rights (“HBOR,” California Civil Code § 2923.5). Id.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint reasserting his claims against Chase and SPS. Dkt. No. 23. Chase moved to strike the Amended Complaint (in light of my prior Order dismissing them with prejudice) and SPS moved to dismiss the remaining claims asserted against it as insufficiently pleaded. Dkt. Nos. 25, 27.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition or other response to either of those motions. Therefore, on January 26, 2023, I issued an Order to Show Cause requiring plaintiff to file “a response or opposition to the pending motions by February 8, 2023. If a response or opposition is not filed by that date, this case will be dismissed as to both defendants with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and for the reasons outlined in the November 2022 Order.” Dkt. No. 32.
As of the date of this Order, plaintiff has not filed a response to the Order to Show Cause.
Therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons outlined in my prior Order (Dkt. No. 22) and for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.