Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01035/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 12:1819 Default of Promissory Note

---

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

JON JON MANUEL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INDYMAC BANK FSB in

Receivership of FDIC, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C10-01035 TEH

ORDER VACATING MAY 17,

2010 HEARING AND ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver of IndyMac Bank, FSB

(“FDIC”) filed a motion to dismiss on April 12, 2010, which it noticed for hearing on May

17, 2010. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiffs’ opposition or statement of non-opposition

was therefore due on April 26, 2010. To date, Plaintiffs have failed to file any response to

FDIC’s motion. Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

the May 17, 2010 motion hearing is VACATED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall SHOW CAUSE as to why this case

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. It appears from the above history that

Plaintiffs have abandoned this case. If Plaintiffs fail to file a written response to this order to

show cause on or before May 17, 2010, then this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice. If

Plaintiffs file a timely written response, then the Court will consider Plaintiffs’ filing and

issue a subsequent case management order, which may include both a revised briefing and

hearing schedule on FDIC’s motion and a hearing as to why sanctions should not be imposed 

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-01035-TEH Document 13 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 2
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

for Plaintiffs’ failure to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending

motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/5/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:10-cv-01035-TEH Document 13 Filed 05/05/10 Page 2 of 2