Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02601/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02601-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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 

II 

FU_ED 

2~ ~ jtjL -9 

.{,g--"" 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARMANDO A. LOBATO CASE NO. llcv2601 WQH (JMA) 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

vs. 

T.D. SERVICES COMPANY; DOES 1 

through 50 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff Armando A. Lobato initiated this action by filing a 

Complaint in the Superior Court ofCali fomi a for the County ofSan Diego against Defendants 

Acqura Loan Services ("Acqura"), Castle Peak 2010-1 Loan Trust ("Castle"), T.D. Services 

Company, and Yolanda Yvette Legrand ("Legrand"). (ECF No. 1-2). November 8, 2011, 

Defendants Acqura, Castle, and Legrand removed the matter to this Court. On February 23, 

2012, claims against Defendants Acqura, Castle, and Legrand were dismissed. The docket 

reflects that no action has been taken by either party in this case with regards to T.D. Services 

Company. 

On June 4, 2012, this Court issued an Order stating: 

Pursuant to Local Rule 41.1, "[a]ctions or proceedings which 

have been pending in this court for more than six months, without 

any proceeding or discovery having been taken therein during such 

period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the court for want of 

prosecution." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 41.1; see also Fed. R. Civ. 

P.41(b). It appearing to the Court that dismissal for want of 

prosecution may be appropriate in this case, Plaintiff is hereby 

-1- Ilcv2601-WQH JMA 

Case 3:11-cv-02601-WQH-JMA Document 9 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 2
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

911 

II 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff shall file a written response to this ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE on or before July 5, 2012. IfPlaintiff does not 

respond, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. 

(ECF No.8 at 1-2). 

To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a written response to the ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 71zd2­

-2- llcv2601-WQH JMA 

Case 3:11-cv-02601-WQH-JMA Document 9 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 2