Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03561/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03561-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONIQUE M. PERNELL,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-03561 FCD KJN PS

v.

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP

fka COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS

SERVICING LP, RECONTRUST 

COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10

inclusive,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Defendants removed this action to federal court and subsequently moved to

dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 5.) 

On April 2, 2010, this court granted defendants’ motion without prejudice and dismissed

plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 16.) Plaintiff filed a

First Amended Complaint on April 28, 2010. (Dkt. No. 17.) Also on April 28, 2010, the court

issued a summons directing defendants to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint within

21 days of service of that summons. (Dkt. No. 18.) A later-filed proof of service indicates that

defendants’ counsel of record were served with the First Amended Complaint and the related

summons on May 13, 2010. (Dkt. No. 19.)

Case 2:09-cv-03561-FCD-KJN Document 23 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants failed to file a response to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. On

July 16, 2010, nearly two months after plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, the court

ordered defendants to “show cause, in writing, on or before August 6, 2010, why appropriate

sanctions should not be imposed upon them for failure to file an answer or other response to

plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.” (Dkt. No. 20.)

On August 6, 2010, defendant filed a response to the order to show cause

(“OSC”), along with a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 21,

22.) Defendants’ response explains that defendants’ lead counsel’s associate departed from their

law firm, and that lead counsel missed the deadline during this period of transition despite the

fact that the deadline had been calendared using the firm’s calendaring software. 

Defendants’ lead counsel’s failure is unfortunate, especially given the delay it has

caused in moving this case forward. However, the undersigned will discharge the OSC without

imposing a sanction on defendants or their attorneys on the ground that defendants’ counsel’s

error constitutes excusable neglect, even if barely so. However, defendants’ lead counsel is

reminded that he and his associate attorneys bear equal responsibility with respect to

calendaring and meeting the court’s deadlines. Future failures by defendants and their counsel

in this regard will result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions. See E. Dist. Local Rules 110

(“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may

be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

within the inherent power of the Court.”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d

829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control

their dockets and may impose sanctions); cf. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir.

1996) (“Dismissal with prejudice and default on counterclaims, for willful and inexcusable

failure to prosecute, are proper exercises of discretion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

41(b), 16(f), and the inherent power of the court.”). 

////

Case 2:09-cv-03561-FCD-KJN Document 23 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 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

 A motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b) “must be made before pleading if a responsive 1

pleading is allowed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). In the Ninth Circuit, a party may file a motion

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) at “any time before the responsive pleading is

filed.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med. Servs., Inc., 855 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing

Bechtel v. Liberty Nat’l Bank, 534 F.2d 1335, 1340-41 (9th Cir. 1976)); see also Sun

Microsystems Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 534 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2007);

Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1031-32 (N.D. Cal. 2001); Destfino v.

Kennedy, No. CV-F-08-1269 LJO DLB, 2009 WL 1706095, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2009)

(unpublished). 

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The OSC entered July 16, 2010 (Dkt. No. 20), is discharged.

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt.

No. 22) is deemed filed.1

3. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss, which defendants noticed

for hearing on September 16, 2010, is continued and will be heard on Thursday, September 30,

2010, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition to defendant’s

motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, or a statement of non-opposition, in accordance

with the court’s Local Rules, including Local Rule 230(c). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-03561-FCD-KJN Document 23 Filed 08/12/10 Page 3 of 3