Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04812/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04812-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

Case No.: 14-CV-04812-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

NARPAT BHANDARI AND CHANDRA

BHANDARI,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CAPITAL ONE, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-CV-04812-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiffs Narpat Bhandari and Chandra Bhandari (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), with the 

assistance of counsel, filed their latest complaint in state court on July 15, 2014. ECF No. 1-1. 

On October 29, 2014, defendants Capital One, N.A., successor by merger to Chevy Chase Bank, 

FSB (erroneously sued separately as “Capital One, N.A. and Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B.”), and 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) removed the instant 

case to federal court. ECF No. 1.

On November 5, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuit pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by 

the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. ECF No. 6. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

Case 5:14-cv-04812-LHK Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 14-CV-04812-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

3(a), Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was due on November 19, 2014.1 As of 

today, January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs have not filed an Opposition or Statement of Nonopposition to 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

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

for failure to prosecute. This Order does not authorize Plaintiffs to file an untimely Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs have until February 13, 2015, to file a written response

to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is hereby set for February 

26, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this Order will result in dismissal with prejudice for failure 

to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

 

1 Defendants renoticed the motion on November 18, 2014, after this case was reassigned to 

the undersigned. ECF No. 12. The hearing on the motion was renoticed for March 5, 2015, at 

1:30 p.m. Id. at 3. The briefing schedule, however, remained unchanged. Id.

Case 5:14-cv-04812-LHK Document 13 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2