Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00016/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1 

NO. C 10‐00016 RS 

 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 02/22/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

ROBERTO ABALOS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; 

RECONSTRUCT COMPANY; and DOES 1 

through 10, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-00016 RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Plaintiff Roberto Abalos (“Abalos”) initiated this case by filing a complaint against 

defendants Bank of America Corporation and Reconstruct Company1

 in Santa Clara Superior Court 

in November 2009. The complaint alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 

et seq., along with other state and federal claims, in relation to Abalos’s residential mortgage loan 

transaction. Defendants removed the case to this Court in January 2010 and have moved to dismiss 

for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

 The motion to dismiss was filed January 11, 2010, and noticed for hearing on February 25, 

2010. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Rubio’s opposition was due no less than 21 days before the 

 

1

 According to defendants, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., was erroneously sued as “Bank of 

America Corporation,” and Recontrust Company was erroneously sued as “Reconstruct Company.” 

Case 5:10-cv-00016-RS Document 9 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

NO. C 10‐00016 RS 

 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

For the Northern District of California 

hearing date. No such opposition, however, has been received or served, and the due date has now 

passed. 

The hearing scheduled for February 25, 2010, is hereby vacated. No later than March 4, 

2010, plaintiff shall file a response to this order showing cause why this action should not be 

dismissed in its entirety. If defendants wish to file a reply to plaintiff’s response, they should do so 

no later than March 11, 2010. The parties shall appear for a show cause hearing in Courtroom 3, 

17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, on 

March 25, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. Failure by plaintiff to respond by the deadline herein or appear at the 

show cause hearing may result in summary dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/22/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 5:10-cv-00016-RS Document 9 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2