Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01050-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARGARIT HOVHANNISYAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1050-MCE-EFB PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was noticed for hearing on October 5, 2016. 

ECF Nos. 38, 42. Plaintiffs failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

the motion. Accordingly, the hearing was continued to November 9, 2016, and plaintiffs were 

ordered, by no later than October 26, 2016, to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

the motion and to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to timely file 

an opposition or statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 47. Plaintiffs were also admonished that 

failure to file an opposition would be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the granting of 

defendant’s motion, and could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of 

prosecution and/or failure to comply with court orders and the court’s local rules.1

 Id. 

 1

 Although it appears from the docket that plaintiffs’ copy of the order to show cause was 

returned as undeliverable, plaintiffs were properly served. It is the plaintiffs’ responsibility to 

Case 2:16-cv-01050-MCE-EFB Document 48 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 2
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

 The deadline has passed and plaintiffs have not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motion, nor have they responded to the court’s order to show cause. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the November 9, 2016 hearing on defendant’s 

motion to dismiss is vacated. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 

to comply with court orders and the court’s local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Cal. E.D. L.R. 

110. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 

to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 31, 2016. 

 

keep the court apprised of their current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), 

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 

Case 2:16-cv-01050-MCE-EFB Document 48 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2