Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00606/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00606-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MITCHELL S. TANCIO, et al.,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 10-0606 PJH

v. ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS

SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICING, et al.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 12, 2010, and

noticed it for hearing on March 24, 2010. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due on March 3, 2010,

though none was filed. Defendants noted plaintiffs’ non-opposition of their motion on

March 10, 2010 and requested a ruling in their favor. Nonetheless, on March 18, 2010, the

parties submitted a stipulation and request to continue the hearing on defendants’ motion to

dismiss, from March 24 to April 21, 2010. It was approved by the court on March 23, 2010.

In the meantime, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint on March 22,

2010, noticing it for hearing, improperly, on April 14, 2010. In accordance with the civil

local rules, the proper date for hearing is April 28, 2010. Accordingly the court VACATES

the April 14, 2010 date and schedules the hearing on the motion to amend for April 28,

2010. To conserve judicial resources, the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is

CONTINUED to April 28, 2010, in order that both motions may be heard at the same time. 

The court notes, however, that plaintiffs’ request to amend essentially concedes certain

defects in their original complaint. Given that the court would likely afford plaintiffs at least

one opportunity to amend their complaint even if the motion were granted, the court

suggests that it might be more efficient for defendants to withdraw the current motion,

Case 4:10-cv-00606-PJH Document 12 Filed 04/02/10 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

stipulate to permitting plaintiffs to file their proposed amended complaint, and then to move

against that complaint, if such action is warranted. Accordingly, the court orders the parties

to immediately meet and confer on this issue and to submit to the court no later than April

9, 2010, a stipulation as to how to most efficiently proceed with the two motions that are

pending. In any event, if the current motions go forward, they will both be heard on April

28, 2010. If any new motions are filed, they shall be filed in accordance with Civil Local

Rule 7-2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00606-PJH Document 12 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 2