Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-00165-LDG (RJJ)
11-28-2012
GUOJIA MAI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. HOME CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Defendant Homeward Residential, Inc. moves to dismiss (#12) the plaintiffs' amended complaint (#8). The Court notified the plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, regarding the requirements to oppose a motion to dismiss (#13). The plaintiffs have not filed any opposition, which failure constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion to dismiss. See LR 7-2(d). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action as against defendant Homeward Residential, Inc.
In addition, the Court previously notified the plaintiffs that the official record in this action reflected that the plaintiffs had not served the amended complaint on either of the remaining defendants: U.S. Home Corporation and MERSCORP Inc. The Court further notified the plaintiffs that this action would be dismissed as against these defendants without prejudice if plaintiffs failed to file proof of service not later than October 6, 2012. The plaintiffs have not filed the requisite proof of service. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice as against defendants U.S. Home Corporation and MERSCORP Inc.
Therefore for good cause shown,
THE COURT ORDERS that Defendant Homeward Residential, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (#12) is GRANTED; Defendant Homeward Residential, Inc. is DISMISSED with prejudice.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Defendants U.S. Home Corporation and MERSCORP Inc. are DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiffs' failure to timely serve these defendants with the amended complaint.
______________
Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge