Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02166/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02166-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 

MAURICE R. WELSH and 

PAULA D. WELSH, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY 

ASSETS LLC, et al.

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 15-2166 CW 

ORDER DIRECTING 

PLAINTIFFS TO 

RESPOND TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

(Docket No. 15) 

 

 On August 5, 2014, Plaintiffs Maurice and Paula Welsh brought 

this mortgage-related action in the Superior Court of California 

against Defendants America’s Servicing Company Assets LLC, et al. 

On May 13, 2015, Defendants removed the action from the Superior 

Court to this Court. On June 3, 2015, Defendants filed a motion 

to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs’ opposition to that 

motion was due on June 17, 2015. On June 24, 2015, the case was 

related to Case No. 13-cv-4750 and reassigned to The undersigned. 

As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not filed an 

opposition as required by Local Civil Rule 7-3(a). 

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper 

ground for dismissal. . . . Before dismissing the action, the 

district court is required to weigh several factors: (1) the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the 

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to 

the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 

cases of their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Case 4:15-cv-02166-CW Document 29 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

 The public’s interest in expeditious resolution and the 

Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. 

However, the risk of prejudice to Defendants is slight. 

Furthermore, Plaintiffs are pro se and, as such, the Court finds 

that a dismissal at this time is too harsh a sanction. 

 Accordingly, Defendants must immediately serve their motion 

to dismiss on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are directed to respond to 

Defendants’ motion within seven days of the receipt of the motion, 

and no later than fourteen days of the date of this order. 

Defendants shall file their reply to the motion seven days after 

Plaintiffs file their response. The motion will be decided on the 

papers. 

 If Plaintiffs fail to respond to Defendants’ motion, this 

action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 06/30/2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-02166-CW Document 29 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 2