Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01818/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01818-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 12:2605 RESPA: Servicing of Mortgage Loans

---

1 

17CV1818 LAB-LL 

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 

CINTHIA F. MARSHALL, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 17CV1818-LAB-LL 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO 

MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER 

[ECF No. 32] 

On July 27, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff failed to oppose this motion. In response, 

the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause as to why Defendant’s motion 

should not be summarily granted. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff failed to comply with this Order. 

On October 5, 2018, Defendant filed a “Motion for Discovery re Determination of 

Discovery Dispute.” ECF No. 24. Plaintiff failed to oppose this motion. In response, the 

Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to respond to the motion by no later than October 

26, 2018. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff failed to comply with this Order. 

On December 21, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling 

Order to extend the deadlines for: (1) pre-trial motions; (2) the mandatory settlement 

conference; (3) pre-trial disclosures; (4) complying with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4); (5) the 

Case 3:17-cv-01818-LAB-LL Document 34 Filed 01/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

17CV1818 LAB-LL 

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

Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order; and (6) the Pretrial Conference. ECF No. 32. 

In support, the Parties state the extension is necessary given Defendants’ Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings and “Motion for Discovery re Determination of Discovery 

Dispute.” Id. at 5. 

On January 7, 2019, the Court granted in part Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on 

the Pleadings. ECF No. 33. In the Order, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause as to why 

this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute by no later than January 16, 

2019. Id. at 2. The Court further ordered Plaintiff, to the extent she believes she can correct 

the defects pointed out in Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, to file a 

Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint by January 28, 2019. Id. at 2-3. If Plaintiff 

files a Motion for Leave, Defendant’s Opposition will be due by February 11, 2019. Id. at 

3. 

For the above reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Parties’ 

request to continue pretrial deadlines at this time. If Plaintiff has shown good cause as to 

why this action should not be dismissed, the Parties are ORDERED to contact the 

Chambers of Judge Lopez within three days of Judge Burns’ ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Leave to schedule a conference to reschedule the remaining pretrial dates. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2019 

Case 3:17-cv-01818-LAB-LL Document 34 Filed 01/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2