Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00210/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00210-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-00210-LHK 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT CASE BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMES YTURRALDE and IRENE 

YTURRALDE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AZTEC FORECLOSURE CORPORATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-00210-LHK 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION THAT CASE BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

The Court has reviewed U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins’s Report and 

Recommendation (the “Report”) to dismiss Plaintiffs’ case for failure to prosecute. See ECF No. 

52. The Report was filed on June 19, 2015, and mailed to Plaintiffs that same day. ECF No. 52-1. 

The time for objections has passed, and Plaintiffs have not filed any. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Having reviewed the Report, as well as the record in this case, the Court finds that the 

Report is well-founded in fact and in law, and therefore adopts the Report with one exception: the 

Court notes that on June 25, 2015—24 days after the statutory deadline, 17 days after the extended 

Case 5:15-cv-00210-LHK Document 59 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-CV-00210-LHK 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT CASE BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

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

Northern District of California

deadline allowed by Judge Cousins, and 6 days after the Report was issued—Plaintiffs filed an 

opposition to Defendant Sabadell’s motion to dismiss, with no explanation or excuse for the 

opposition’s untimeliness. ECF No. 55. To date, Plaintiffs still have not opposed the motion to 

dismiss filed by Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), although that 

opposition was due on June 18, 2015.

Based on Plaintiffs’ failure to timely oppose Sabadell’s motion to dismiss, their failure to 

oppose the FDIC’s motion to dismiss, their failure to file objections to the Report, and their 

consistent refusal to follow the Local Rules and the many orders issued by Judge Cousins as set 

forth in the Report, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report to dismiss Plaintiffs’ case for failure to 

prosecute. Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the motion hearings and initial case 

management conference set for September 24, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

The Clerk shall close the case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00210-LHK Document 59 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 2