Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02289/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02289-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

19cv2289-LAB (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT S. HARRY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT SERVICES,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv2289-LAB (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS [Dkt. 3];

ORDER RE: SERVICE

Plaintiffs Herbert and Karen Harry originally brought this suit in San Diego County 

Superior Court on October 23, 2019. Their complaint alleges various causes of action 

against the defendants—all financial-services companies—related to the servicing and 

refinancing of Plaintiffs’ mortgage. On December 2, 2019, Defendant PHH Mortgage 

removed the case to this Court and then moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. A hearing 

on that motion was set for February 3, 2020. Plaintiffs did not file a timely opposition to 

PHH’s motion, so, on January 28, 2020, the Court vacated the hearing and instructed 

Plaintiffs to file an opposition (or notice of non-opposition) within one week. The Court 

specifically cautioned that “[f]ailure to file an opposition will be deemed consent to the 

motion being granted.” See L.R. 7.1(f)(3)(C). The time for Plaintiffs to file an opposition 

has (again) come and gone, but they still have not filed an opposition. As such, PHH 

Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ claims against PHH Mortgage 

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:19-cv-02289-LAB-BGS Document 6 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv2289-LAB (BGS)

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

1995) (affirming a district court’s decision to dismiss with prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s 

claims where, despite being “given ample time to respond,” that plaintiff failed to timely 

respond to a motion to dismiss.”).

The Court also cautions that the time for Plaintiffs to properly serve the remaining 

Defendants is running out. A review of the dockets—both from this Court and the state 

court—suggests that Plaintiffs have not yet served any defendant other than PHH 

Mortgage. The time for service restarts upon removal, which means that Plaintiffs have 

until March 1, 2019 to properly serve the remaining defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m);

Workman v. Bissessar, 275 F. Supp. 3d 263, 269 (D.D.C. 2017) (“[T]he time to effect 

service specified in [Rule] 4(m) starts to run upon removal to the federal district court, not 

the date the action was originated in state court.) (quotation marks omitted). If the 

remaining defendants are not served by that date, this Court will dismiss any non-served 

defendants without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02289-LAB-BGS Document 6 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2