From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montgomery v. U.S. Bank

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 14, 2021
21-cv-05242-EMC (N.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-05242-EMC

09-14-2021

RAY MONTGOMERY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge

On June 2, 2021, pro se Plaintiffs Ray and Marie Lynne Montgomery filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and slander of title in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Docket No. 1, Ex. 1 (State Superior Court Complaint). On July 7, 2021, Defendants U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee for MLM1 Trust Series 2006-HE4, Bank of America, Nationstar Mortgage, and DBA Mr. Cooper, N.A. Does 1-5 jointly filed a notice of removal to this Court, asserting diversity and federal question jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 2, Docket No. 1. On July 14, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Defs. Mot. to Dismiss at 2, Docket No. 8. On August 2, 2021, Defendants filed a proof of service indicating that Plaintiffs were served the motion to dismiss. Defs. Amended Notice of Mot. to Dismiss at 3, Docket No. 13. On August 6, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint but, in actuality, Plaintiffs were seeking an extension of time to file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Docket No. 17. On August 6, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an opposition to dismiss. Per the Court's order, Plaintiffs' opposition was due on September 2, 2021. Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court's order and did not file a response.

Consequently, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute The response to the order to show cause should be filed by September 28, 2021. In response to the order to show cause, Plaintiffs should address why their complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, as well as the substantive merits of Defendants' arguments for dismissal. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice.

The hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss, currently set for September 23, 2021, is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Montgomery v. U.S. Bank

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Sep 14, 2021
21-cv-05242-EMC (N.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2021)
Case details for

Montgomery v. U.S. Bank

Case Details

Full title:RAY MONTGOMERY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Sep 14, 2021

Citations

21-cv-05242-EMC (N.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2021)