Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00585/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00585-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

JOSE CRUZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 15-00585 LB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO FILE A LATE

OPPOSITION

In this mortgage- and foreclosure-related action, Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’

complaint. Defendant filed and served its motion on March 16, 2015, which means, under this

district’s civil local rules, that Plaintiffs’ opposition was due on March 30, 2015. That day came and

went, but Plaintiffs never filed an opposition. After Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition on

April 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an opposition the next day. In a declaration attached to the untimely

opposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel states that his office’s calendar clerk mistakenly thought the

opposition was due nine calendar days before the hearing on the motion (as he says is the rule in

state court). He therefore asks the court to consider his late opposition. He says that this will cause

no prejudice because Defendant still may have seven calendar days to file a reply (in accordance

with this district’s civil local rules) and there still will be enough time for the court to consider the

briefing because the motion is not set for hearing until May 7, 2015. Defendant has not filed

anything indicating that it opposes Plaintiffs’ request and in fact filed its reply to Plaintiffs’

opposition seven days after the opposition was filed. 

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 16 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ request, the court grants it. The court will consider Plaintiffs’

late opposition and Defendant’s reply. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00585-LB Document 16 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 2