Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00964/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00964-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

ESPERANZA CORRAL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00964-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Docket Nos. 20, 23

Plaintiffs Esperanza Corral and Diana Balgas filed the instant suit against Defendants Bank 

of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Docket No. 1. (Compl.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendants 

violated the Fair Housing Act, Equal Opportunity Credit Act, California Fair Employment and 

Housing Act, California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and the California Unruh 

Civil Rights Act by “willfully denying them sustainable home mortgage loan modifications due to 

their being a female, same-sex couple of Latina descent.” Id. at ¶ 1; see also id. at ¶¶ 25-56. 

Plaintiffs also filed an action in state court predicated on similar factual allegations and asserting 

identical causes of action, and the Bank of America Defendants and Chase filed separate notices of 

removal. Case Nos. 16-cv-2215, 16-cv-2235. The three cases have since been consolidated. 

Docket No. 29.

Currently pending before the Court are four motions to dismiss. Docket Nos. 20 (Chase 

Motion to Dismiss), 23 (Bank of America Motion to Dismiss); Case No. 16-cv-2215, Docket No. 

10 (Bank of America Motion to Dismiss); Case No. 16-cv-2235, Docket No. 6 (Chase Motion to 

Dismiss). Plaintiffs’ oppositions to the motion to dismiss were due on May 18, 2016 in the instant 

case and Case No. 16-cv-2215, and May 16, 2016 in Case No. 16-cv-2235. No opposition has 

Case 3:16-cv-00964-EMC Document 32 Filed 05/24/16 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

been filed in response to any of the motions to dismiss.

Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the June 21, 2016 hearing on Defendants’ four

motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to show cause as to why their complaints should 

not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to oppose and/or failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs shall 

also address, in their response to this order to show cause, the substantive arguments raised by 

Defendants in their respective motions.

Plaintiffs’ response shall be filed within two weeks of the date of this order. Plaintiffs 

are forewarned that a failure to timely file a response to this order to show cause shall result in 

dismissal of their cases with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00964-EMC Document 32 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 2