Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00210/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00210-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

Case No.:15-cv-00210-NC 

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES YTURRALDE, IRENE YTURRALDE

Plaintiffs,

v.

AZTEC FORECLOSURE 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-00210-NC 

REFERRAL AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 42, 44

Plaintiffs James and Irene Yturralde sued defendants, alleging wrongful foreclosure 

of their house. On May 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint with the Court’s 

permission, and defendants moved to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 38, 42, 44. Plaintiffs’ opposition 

to Sabadell’s motion to dismiss was due on June 1, 2015. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the 

FDIC’s motion to dismiss was due on June 18, 2015. No opposition has been filed. The 

Court previously ordered plaintiff Irene Yturralde to file a consent or declination by June 

9, 2015, which she did not do. Dkt. No. 49. Additionally, the Court required plaintiffs to 

respond or submit a statement of non-opposition to Sabadell’s motion to dismiss by June 9, 

2015. No opposition has been filed. Finally, defendant Aztec Foreclosure Corp. has not 

appeared in this Court, and plaintiffs have not served defendant Aztec Foreclosure Corp. 

with the amended complaint. The Court required plaintiffs to do so and provide proof of 

service by June 9, 2015, which was not completed. 

Case 5:15-cv-00210-LHK Document 52 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 2
Case No.:15-cv-00210-NC 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

Northern District of California

This Court does not have the consent of the parties, so the Court refers the case for 

reassignment to a district judge and recommends that the district judge dismiss the case for 

failure to oppose the motions to dismiss and failure to prosecute the case. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(b). Because the Court recommends dismissal, the Court does not reach the FDIC’s 

request to transfer the case. Dkt. No. 44.

Any party may object to this order within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00210-LHK Document 52 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 2