Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01260/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01260-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Linda M. Jackson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chase Home Finance, LLC, its assigns

and/or successors, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1260-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant on May 14, 2010 in the Superior Court

for Maricopa County. Defendant removed this matter to this Court on June 14, 2010.

Doc. 1. On June 21, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 6. Plaintiff has filed no response, and the time for

doing so has expired. See LRCiv 12.1(b), 56.1(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Plaintiff shall have

until August 27, 2010 to file a response to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 6).

Plaintiff must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”).

See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same

rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th

Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys

of record”); Carter v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986)

(“Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he

Case 2:10-cv-01260-DGC Document 17 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

litigates.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet

website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil

Procedure may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office.

Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an unrepresented party’s

failure to respond to a motion “may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion

and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). Plaintiff is advised that

if she does not file a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) by August 27, 2010,

the Court will summarily grant the motion. Plaintiff is further advised that if she fails to

prosecute this action, or if she fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court

may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff shall have until August 27, 2010 to file a response to Defendant’s

motion to dismiss (Doc. 6).

2. Plaintiff is warned that the Court will summarily grant the motion to dismiss

if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order.

DATED this 19th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01260-DGC Document 17 Filed 08/19/10 Page 2 of 2