Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02063/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02063-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1442 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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA AHMADYAR, an

individual, AHMAD AHMADYAR, an

individual,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS, a

Texas corporation and a division

of First Tennessee Bank National

Association, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:09-cv-02063-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT FIRST

HORIZON HOME LOANS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO EXPUNGE THE

LIS PENDENS AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN

EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THIS

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

On August 3, 2010, Defendant First Horizon Home Loans

(“First Horizon”) filed an ex parte application seeking an order

expunging the lis pendens recorded by Plaintiffs on June 23, 2009 in

the Sacramento County Recorder’s Office. (Docket No. 49.) First

Horizon’s ex parte application, however, is denied as moot since an

order issued on March 25, 2010 granted First Horizon’s motion to

expunge this same lis pendens. (See Docket No. 47.) First Horizon,

therefore, has already obtained the relief that it requests in its ex

parte application.

The order issued on March 25, 2010 also granted First

Horizon’s dismissal motion, and dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

Plaintiffs were granted fourteen days to file an amended complaint;

Case 2:09-cv-02063-GEB-EFB Document 50 Filed 08/05/10 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

yet, to date, Plaintiffs have not filed an amended pleading or

otherwise participated in this litigation. This case, therefore, has

languished on the Court’s docket without action for over four months. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs shall file an explanation no later

than August 11, 2010 at 4:30 p.m., stating why their case should not

be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b) for their failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370

U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (stating that Rule 41(b) allows a court to act

“on [its] own initiative, to clear [its] calendar[] of cases that have

remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the

parties seeking relief”). If Plaintiffs fail to file a timely and

satisfactory explanation, this action shall be dismissed with

prejudice.

Dated: August 4, 2010

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-02063-GEB-EFB Document 50 Filed 08/05/10 Page 2 of 2