Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01050/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01050-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOEL RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE

UNDER POOLING AND SERVICING

AGREEMENT DATED AS OF NOVEMBER

1, 2004, ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH

CERTIFICATES SERIES 2004 WHQ2,

BARCLAYS CAPITAL REAL ESTATE d/b/a

HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION,

OLD REPUBLIC DEFAULT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, ARGENT

MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, THE HOME

LOAN GROUP, and DOES 1–100, Inclusive.

Defendants. /

No. C 10-01050 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee under pooling and servicing agreement

dated as of November 1, 2004, asset-backed pass-through certificates series 2004 WHQ2, and

Barclays Capital Real Estate d/b/a Homeq Servicing Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s complaint. The motion is scheduled to be heard on April 29, 2010. Pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 7-3, any brief in opposition to the motion was due on April 8, 2010, but no such

opposition has been received. Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond by NOON ON WEDNESDAY,

APRIL 14, 2010, and show cause for its failure to respond to the motion in accordance with

Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternately to file a statement of nonopposition to the motion as

required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). This order to show cause does not constitute permission to

Case 3:10-cv-01050-WHA Document 14 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

file a late opposition. The hearing on defendant’s motion to remand is VACATED. A new

hearing shall be noticed by the Court if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01050-WHA Document 14 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2