Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05571/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05571-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
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

1 Plaintiff's counsel is counsel in another case pending before this Court and has

been advised in that case that future failures to comply with Court deadlines could result in

monetary sanctions being imposed.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILLIAN LEIVA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-5571 JSW

FINAL ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE AND IMPOSING

SANCTIONS ON COUNSEL

On December 23, 2009, Defendants Citimortgage, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Strike, which are noticed

for hearing on April 2, 2010. On January 4, 2010, this Court issued an Order setting a briefing

schedule. Pursuant to that Order, Plaintiff's opposition briefs were due by no later than January

15, 2010. Plaintiff did not file her opposition briefs in accordance with the Court's deadline. 

Accordingly, on January 20, 2010, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing

Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, or

why the motions should not be granted as unopposed, or why the Court should not impose

monetary sanctions on Plaintiff or her counsel.1

 Plaintiff's response to this Order to Show

Cause was due on January 29, 2010. The Court also advised Plaintiff that if she sought to file

opposition briefs to Defendants' motions, she would be required submit a request to the Court

by January 29, 2010 demonstrating good cause to permit the filing of untimely briefs.

Case 3:09-cv-05571-JSW Document 12 Filed 02/05/10 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

Finally, the Court advised Plaintiff that if she failed to submit a response to this Order to

Show Cause by January 29, 2010, the Court would dismiss this case without prejudice for

failure to prosecute without further notice to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause and did not submit a request

to late file her opposition briefs by January 29, 2010. As of the issuance of this Order, Plaintiff

has not filed a response to the Order to Show Cause and has not sought leave to submit her

opposition briefs out of time. The Court does not wish to unnecessarily penalize Plaintiff for

her counsel's errors, accordingly, the Court shall provide Plaintiff and counsel one final

opportunity to respond to this Order to Show Cause before it dismisses the matter for failure to

prosecute. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause

demonstrating why the Court should not dismiss this case for failure to prosecute or why

Defendants' motions should not be granted as unopposed.

Plaintiff's response to this Final Order to Show Cause shall be due by no later than

February 16, 2010. Again, if Plaintiff seeks to file opposition briefs to the pending motions to

dismiss, she must submit a request to the Court demonstrating good cause for her previous

failures to comply with this Court's scheduling orders and orders to show cause. If Plaintiff

fails to respond to this Final Order to Show Cause, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice

without further notice to Plaintiff.

Finally, the Court shall impose monetary sanctions upon Plaintiff's counsel in the

amount of $ 250.00 for failure to comply with the Court's deadlines. Plaintiff's counsel shall not

pass these sanctions on to Plaintiff, unless she can demonstrate to the Court that her failure to

comply with the Court's deadlines was attributable to Plaintiff's conduct and not her own. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall serve a copy of this Order on her client, and shall a

notice with the Court attesting that she has done so. 

Counsel shall pay the sanctions imposed by this Order to the Clerk of the Court by no

later than February 19, 2010, and shall file the notice attesting that she has served a copy of the

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-05571-JSW Document 12 Filed 02/05/10 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

Order on Plaintiff by that same date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05571-JSW Document 12 Filed 02/05/10 Page 3 of 3