Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04431/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04431-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

MAXINE EPSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GMAC Mortgage LLC,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-04431 JSW

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

On September 29, 2009, this Court issued two Orders setting briefing schedules on

Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant Green Point Mortgage and Defendant GMAC Mortgage,

LLC. Pursuant to those Orders Plaintiff’s opposition briefs to the motions were due on October

16, 2009. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to either motion in accordance with the Court’s

briefing schedule. 

On October 22, 2009, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to show cause as to

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s response was due by

no later than October 30, 2009, and the Court advised Plaintiff that failure to respond to the

Order would result in dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to

Plaintiff.

On October 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, but did not file a response

to the Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, on November 2, 2009, the Court issued a Further

Order to Show Cause, because although the filing of the Amended Complaint demonstrated

Plaintiff’s intent to prosecute this action, Plaintiff did not explain her failure to comply with this

Case 3:09-cv-04431-JSW Document 38 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Court’s briefing schedule on the motions to dismiss.

On November 6, 2009, Plaintiff filed her response, and stated that the failure to comply

with the Court’s briefing schedule was attributable to personnel changes in her counsel’s office,

and that counsel had not received notice of the briefing schedule. On November 12, 2009, after

reviewing the response, the Court discharged the Order to Show cause without taking further

action. However, the Court admonished Plaintiff that failure to comply with deadlines in the

future might result in sanctions being imposed. 

In that same Order, the Court set a briefing schedule on Defendant GMAC Mortgage,

LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which Defendant had noticed for

hearing on January 15, 2010. The Court ordered that Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion would

be due on December 4, 2009. Notwithstanding the Court’s previous admonitions about failure

to comply with Court deadlines, Plaintiff again failed to comply with the briefing schedule set

by this Court.

Therefore, on December 14, 2009, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why

sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Court’s deadline. The Court has

received Plaintiff’s response, in which counsel again attributes the failure to timely file an

opposition brief on “substantial structural changes to its operation as a law firm.” The Court

does not find counsel’s response acceptable and therefore shall impose monetary sanctions

against counsel in the amount of $1000.00. Counsel shall pay these sanctions to the Clerk of

the Court by no later than February 16, 2010. Counsel shall also serve a copy of this Order on

the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel for The State Bar of California. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that this cost shall not be passed on to Plaintiff. However,

counsel shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. Because it appears to the Court that

Plaintiff herself is not at fault for the failure to file a timely opposition, it shall consider the late

filed opposition brief and shall decide the motion to dismiss on the merits. 

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-04431-JSW Document 38 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The motion to dismiss is under submission and shall be resolved by separate order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-04431-JSW Document 38 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 3