Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00694/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00694-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KOUROSH HAMIDI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0694 GEB EFB PS

vs.

LITTON LOAN SERVICE, LP; BANK OF

NEW YORK; OWNIT; QUALITY LOAN

SERVICE; MERS;

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 March 23,

2010, defendants Litton Loan Servicing LP, Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a the Bank of New

York as Successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as Trustee for the Ownit

Mortgage Loan Asset-backed Certificates, Series 2006-1, and Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems (collectively referred to hereafter as “defendants”) removed this action from

Sacramento Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b) and (c), and 1446 on the

basis that plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection

Act (“HOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1637; the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12

U.S.C. §§ 2601-17; the Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.;

Case 2:10-cv-00694-GEB-EFB Document 22 Filed 07/19/10 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

 Pending before the undersigned are (1) defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint

for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) or, in the

alternative, defendants’ motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e); and (2)

defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f). Dckt. Nos. 7,

8. 

2

certain provisions of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 236; certain provisions of the Federal Fair Credit

Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.; and certain provisions of the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.

1

 Dckt. No. 1 at

2. 

Also on March 23, 2010, the undersigned issued an order setting a status (pretrial

scheduling) conference for July 28, 2010 and directing the parties to file status reports at least

fourteen days prior to the conference (by July 14, 2010). Dckt. No. 3 at 2. The order cautioned

the parties that failure to obey the Federal Rules, Local Rules, or orders of the court could result

in sanctions, including a recommendation that the case be dismissed. Id. at 3.

On July 14, 2010, defendants filed a status report indicating that they had attempted to

meet and confer with plaintiff regarding filing a joint status report but that plaintiff had been

“unresponsive.” Dckt. No. 18. The docket also reveals that plaintiff has not filed a status report,

as required by the March 23, 2010 order. Therefore, the status (pretrial scheduling) conference

will be continued and plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned

for failing to comply with this obligation. See Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party

to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the

Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the

Court.”); see also Local Rule 183 (“Any individual representing himself or herself without an

attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local

Rules.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s

local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). 

////

Case 2:10-cv-00694-GEB-EFB Document 22 Filed 07/19/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Status Conference currently set for July 28, 2010, is continued to September 29,

2010, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 24, and defendants’ request to appear at the July 28, 2010

conference telephonically, Dckt. No. 20, is denied as moot.

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, on or before August 25, 2010, why sanctions

should not be imposed upon him for failure to file a status report in compliance with the court’s

March 23, 2010 order. 

3. Also by August 25, 2010, plaintiff shall file a status report setting forth the matters

referenced in the court’s March 23, 2010 order.

4. Defendants are not required to file a further status report or a response to plaintiff’s

status report, but if they elect to do so, any such status report or response to plaintiff’s status

report shall be filed on or before September 1, 2010. 

5. Failure of plaintiff to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions,

including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 19, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00694-GEB-EFB Document 22 Filed 07/19/10 Page 3 of 3