Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01421/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01421-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-01421-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AASHWINI LAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-01421-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Aashwini Lal (“Plaintiff”), with the assistance of counsel, filed suit on or around

October 31, 2014, in Santa Clara County Superior Court. ECF No. 1 Ex. A. Plaintiff filed a First 

Amended Complaint on or around November 14, 2014. Id. Ex. C. Defendants Specialized Loan 

Servicing, LLC (“SLS”), Specialized Asset Management, LLC (“SAM”), and Deutsche Bank 

National Trust as Trustee for GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 206-0A1 (“Deutsche”) (collectively,

“Defendants”) removed the instant case to federal court on March 27, 2015. ECF No. 1

On April 3, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit, arguing that each of 

Plaintiff’s causes of action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 10. A hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

was set for September 10, 2015. ECF No. 20. The instant case was reassigned to the undersigned 

Case 5:15-cv-01421-LHK Document 21 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-CV-01421-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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

Northern District of California

on April 10, 2015. ECF No. 16.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-3(a) and 7-7(d), Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss was due on April 17, 2015. On April 24, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of 

Non-Opposition, which indicated that “Defendants have not received an opposition, nor does the 

Court’s docket note any entry of a filing of an opposition.” ECF No. 17 at 2. Because Plaintiff 

had failed to file any Opposition, Defendants requested “that the Court sustain the motion to 

dismiss the Complaint without leave to amend.” Id. As of today, May 4, 2015, Plaintiff has not 

filed an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed 

with prejudice for failure to prosecute. This Order does not authorize Plaintiff to file an untimely 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has until May 15, 2015, to file a written 

response not to exceed ten (10) pages in length to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this 

Order to Show Cause is hereby set for May 21, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the hearing on May 21, 2015, 

will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01421-LHK Document 21 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 2