Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01343/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01343-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLYDE R. DAVENPORT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01343-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Docket Nos. 6, 15

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have filed a foreclosure-related action against Defendant. 

Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. The original motion was served on 

Plaintiffs (via FedEx) on April 14, 2016. See Docket No. 8 (certificate of service). Subsequently, 

Defendant re-served the motion on Plaintiffs (via FedEx) on April 19, 2016. (The motion was renoticed as the case had been reassigned from Judge Spero of this District to the undersigned. See

Docket No. 13 (reassignment order); Docket No. 15-1 (certificate of service).) A hearing on 

Defendant’s motion is currently scheduled for May 26, 2016. 

Although Plaintiffs have been on notice of Defendant’s motion since mid-April, they have 

yet to file a written opposition to the motion. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (providing that an opposition to 

a motion “must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was filed”). While 

there are indications that Plaintiffs wish to prosecute this case – e.g., they filed a motion to compel 

discovery in late April and then, in early May, filed a request for the Court to approve the 

recording of a notice of lis pendens, see Docket Nos. 17, 20 (Plaintiffs’ filings), that does not 

excuse their failure to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the May 26 hearing on Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to show cause as to why Defendant’s motion should not be 

Case 3:16-cv-01343-EMC Document 23 Filed 05/12/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

granted based on Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose and/or prosecute. In their response, Plaintiffs shall 

also address the substantive arguments raised in Defendant’s motion. Plaintiffs’ response to this 

order to show cause shall be filed and served by June 2, 2016. Plaintiffs are forewarned that

a failure to file a timely response shall result in a dismissal of this case with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01343-EMC Document 23 Filed 05/12/16 Page 2 of 2