Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03084/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03084-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GABRIEL REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National 

Association; NORTHWEST TRUSTEE 

SERVICES, INC., a Washington 

Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-03084-HRL 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff filed this mortgage action on July 2, 2015. Shortly after, defendant Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A. moved to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to that motion. 

Nevertheless, this court subsequently was informed that the parties had agreed to pursue a loan 

modification review. Accordingly, Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss was taken off calendar.

Plaintiff apparently did not submit his loan modification application until over a month 

later. (Dkt. 18). According to Wells Fargo, the application was incomplete; and, plaintiff was 

given until November 27, 2015 to submit the additional information defendant requested. The 

parties later reported that plaintiff never submitted the requested information. Consequently, the 

loan modification review was closed. (Dkt. 20). At the parties’ request this court restored Wells 

Fargo’s motion to dismiss to the calendar and re-set briefing deadlines. (Dkt. 21).

Case 5:15-cv-03084-HRL Document 30 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Once again, plaintiff allowed the filing deadline to lapse without filing any opposition 

papers. Additionally, this court was told that plaintiff’s counsel failed to participate in a February 

10, 2016 ADR phone conference and that efforts to contact plaintiff’s counsel by phone were

unsuccessful.

The court then converted what would have been the February 16, 2016 hearing on Wells 

Fargo’s motion to dismiss to a status conference at which the parties were directed to appear and 

advise as to the status of this matter. Wells Fargo’s counsel appeared. Plaintiff did not. Defense 

counsel stated that just prior to the conference, he received an email from plaintiff’s counsel 

claiming that a medical emergency prevented him from making an appearance and requesting that 

the matter be continued for a week.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Edward Ramirez, shall appear in person before this court on February 

23, 2016, 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor of the United States District Court, 280 South First 

Street, San Jose, California and show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. Additionally, no later than February 19, 2016, Mr. Ramirez shall file a declaration 

explaining the medical emergency that reportedly prevented him from appearing at the February 

16, 2016 status conference.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-03084-HRL Document 30 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:15-cv-03084-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Edward Robert Ramirez err@ramirezassociatesllp.com

Gurinder Singh Grewal gsg@severson.com, jc@severson.com, jfa@severson.com

Jason Allen Savlov jsavlov@rcolegal.com, aphommasa@rcolegal.com

Case 5:15-cv-03084-HRL Document 30 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 3