Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02409/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02409-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOROTHY L. TURNER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, and

any and all persons unknown, claiming any

legal right, title, estate, lien, or interest in

the property described in the complaint

adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud on

Plaintiff’s title thereto, and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-02409 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AND VACATING HEARING

Defendants moved to dismiss this predatory lending action on June 8, 2010, for a hearing

noticed on August 5. The motion and notice of the hearing date were both served on pro se

plaintiff Dorothy L. Turner via Federal Express overnight delivery (Dkt. Nos. 5, 13). Under the

35-day briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-3, plaintiff was supposed to file an

opposition brief to defendants’ motion to dismiss by July 15. No opposition brief has been filed. 

Due to this failure, the hearing on this motion scheduled for August 5 is VACATED. 

Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for failure

to prosecute. A written response to this order — in which plaintiff must explain why she has not

filed a timely opposition brief and set forth reasons why defendants’ motion should not be granted

— must be received by the Court no later than AUGUST 5. Plaintiff is warned that failure to 

Case 3:10-cv-02409-WHA Document 15 Filed 07/19/10 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

respond to this order by the deadline will likely result in the immediate dismissal of her case. 

If plaintiff files an opposition brief and provides an adequate explanation for her untimely

filing, a new hearing date may be scheduled if necessary. Otherwise, the motion will be resolved

on the papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-02409-WHA Document 15 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2