From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

EIFFERT v. JPMORGAN CHASE, NA

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 29, 2010
NO. CIV. S-10-1687 LKK/KJM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2010)

Opinion

NO. CIV. S-10-1687 LKK/KJM.

July 29, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff in this case brings claims arising out of his mortgage. Defendant JPMorgan Chase, N.A., has filed a motion to dismiss noticed for hearing on August 9, 2010. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff's opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on July 26, 2010. In violation of this rule, plaintiff has failed to respond to the noticed motion.

Based on the above, the court ORDERS as follows:

1. Counsel for plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why sanctions should not issue in accordance with Local Rule 110, including a fine of $150 and/or dismissal of this case. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962). Counsel shall file a response to this order to show cause no later than August 13, 2010.
2. Hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6) is CONTINUED to August 30, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
3. Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition or statement of non-opposition on or before August 13, 2010. Defendant GMAC Mortgage may file and serve a reply no later than August 20, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

EIFFERT v. JPMORGAN CHASE, NA

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jul 29, 2010
NO. CIV. S-10-1687 LKK/KJM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2010)
Case details for

EIFFERT v. JPMORGAN CHASE, NA

Case Details

Full title:JAMES L. EIFFERT, TERRI L. EIFFERT, and TEDDY ENTERPRISES, a California…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 29, 2010

Citations

NO. CIV. S-10-1687 LKK/KJM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2010)