Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02053/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02053-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 42:1475 Declaratory &amp; Injunctive Relief - Foreclosure Procedures

---

1

16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

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

PERLITA NEWMAN, and GEORGE 

NEWMAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

The Court scheduled a hearing for want of prosecution pursuant to Local Rule 41.1 

because there had been no activity in this case since October 2016. Plaintiffs filed a notice 

indicating they concurred with the Court’s decision to dismiss the complaint because 

Defendant had no legal right to sell Plaintiffs’ home. (ECF No. 9.) Because Plaintiffs 

misunderstood the purpose of the hearing, the Court continued the hearing and stated “[t]o 

be clear, the dismissal would be without prejudice and would not be based on the merits of 

Plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs would not be receiving a default against Defendants, as they 

indicate in their notice.” (ECF No. 10). The Court requested a response from Plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs filed a response stating they “request that no hearing be held on 4/26/2018, and 

that the entire matter be dismissed, with zero damages to both the Defendant, and the 

Case 3:16-cv-02053-JLS-WVG Document 12 Filed 04/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

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

Plaintiffs” and “if possible” for the Court to include in its order language that Defendant 

has no interest in Plaintiffs’ property. (ECF No. 11.)

As the Court stated previously, this dismissal is not on the merits and the Court is 

not making any determination on Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The case is being dismissed 

pursuant to Local Rule 41.1 because it has “been pending in this court for more than six 

months, without any proceeding or discovery having been taken therein during such 

period.” Civ. L. R. 41.1.

The Court VACATES the hearing set for April 26, 2018 and DISMISSES this

action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02053-JLS-WVG Document 12 Filed 04/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2