Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02185/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02185-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER PAIZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2185 GEB EFB PS

vs.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS);

FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK; and 

AMTRUST BANK, ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

_________________________________/

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 10,

2009, defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank removed this action from Sacramento County Superior

Court to the Northern District of California based on federal question jurisdiction, and on August

7, 2009, the action was transferred to this district from the Northern District of California. Dckt.

Nos. 1, 15. On October 2, 2009, defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank filed a motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s complaint, and defendant AmTrust Bank joined in the motion. Dckt. Nos. 24, 31. 

 Because plaintiff failed to file a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, on November

20, 2009, the court continued the hearing on the motion to January 13, 2010; ordered plaintiff to

Case 2:09-cv-02185-GEB-EFB Document 40 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 As a result, the parties are not required to submit status reports as provided in the

August 7, 2009 order. See Dckt. No. 18 at 2. However, if the recommendation of dismissal

herein is not adopted by the district judge, the undersigned will reschedule the status conference

and require the parties to submit status reports. 

2

show cause, in writing, no later than December 28, 2009, why sanctions should not be imposed

for failure to timely file a response to the motion; and directed plaintiff to file an opposition or a

statement of non-opposition to the motion no later than December 28, 2009. Dckt. No. 34. The

order further provided that “[f]ailure of plaintiff to file an opposition will be deemed a statement

of non-opposition to the pending motion, and may result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” Id. at 3. 

The deadline to respond has passed and the court docket reflects that plaintiff has not

responded to the order to show cause nor filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to

defendants’ motion. In light of plaintiff’s failures, the undersigned will recommend that this

action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as

moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of January 13, 2010 on defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 24, 

is vacated; and

2. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for hearing on February 24,

2010, is vacated.1

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based on

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 24, be denied as moot; and

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

Case 2:09-cv-02185-GEB-EFB Document 40 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 5, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02185-GEB-EFB Document 40 Filed 01/05/10 Page 3 of 3