Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00070/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00070-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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

THERESA SCHOENBART,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A;

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., U.S.

BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as

trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-00070 WHA

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE RE

MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

The parties filed a stipulation seeking to continue the hearing on defendants’ pending

motions due to plaintiff’s counsel’s scheduling conflict. The stipulation also sought to extend

the deadline for all briefing by two weeks. No good cause was shown for the extension of the

deadline, and plaintiff’s responses were already nearly a week overdue. The parties were

ordered to show cause why the extension should be granted. 

Defendants filed responses stating that they simply agreed to the stipulation as a matter

of professional courtesy (Dkt. Nos. 50–51). Plaintiff filed her responses to the pending

motions, but did not timely respond to the order to show cause. Plaintiff’s response, a day late,

restated the basis for continuing the hearing and apologized for the delay in responding to the

order to show cause, but included no explanation for the delay in filing her responses to

defendants’ motions. Plaintiff shall explain her delay in responding to the pending motions by

Case 3:16-cv-00070-WHA Document 55 Filed 06/06/16 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

NOON ON JUNE 10. Failure to adequately respond may result in dismissal for lack of

prosecution.

Meanwhile, in light of the delays and plaintiff’s scheduling conflict, defendants’ replies

shall be due JUNE 13, and the hearing is hereby CONTINUED to JULY 14 AT 8:00 A.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00070-WHA Document 55 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2