Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04465/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04465-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

MARILYN POSTLEWAITE, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-04465-YGR 

ORDER: (1) TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF PAMELA 

POSTLEWAITE TO SHOW CONTINUED 

INTENT TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND 

(2) RESCHEDULING HEARINGS

On January 20, 2015, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“WFB”) moved to dismiss as a 

terminating sanction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 or 41(b). (Dkt. No. 119.) 

The motion was premised on plaintiffs’ purported failure to prosecute and non-compliance with 

this Court’s orders. The other defendants joined in the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 121, 123.) Plaintiffs

Marilyn and Pamela Postlewaite filed an opposition thereto. (Dkt. No. 127.)

On February 25, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the scheduling order, continue the 

trial date by 180 days, and vacate all trial-related deadlines, including the approaching deadline to 

complete fact discovery. (Dkt. No. 132.) On that same day, counsel for plaintiffs moved to 

withdraw from the case, stating “[p]laintiffs have failed to maintain regular communications with 

counsel,” and that this “absence of communication and contact renders adequate preparation for 

trial impossible.” (Dkt. No. 133 at 5; see also Dkt. No. 133-1 ¶ 5-7.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff Pamela Postlewaite to 

show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The hearing on this 

order to show cause shall occur on April 7, 2015 at 9 a.m., in the Federal Courthouse located at 

1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, in Courtroom 1. Plaintiff Pamela Postlewaite is ordered 

to attend this hearing personally and confirm that she intends to prosecute this action and be 

prepared to sit for a deposition on that day.

1

 Failure to appear will result in dismissal for 

 

1 Counsel for defendants shall make standby arrangements for a deposition.

Case 4:12-cv-04465-YGR Document 134 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

failure to prosecute.2 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND WARRANTING DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs initiated this action in state court on August 1, 2012, seeking to set aside a 

trustee’s sale, cancel the deed of sale, quiet title, and receive an accounting from defendants in 

connection with a foreclosure of their former residence. (Dkt. No. 1.) On August 24, 2012, WFB 

removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Id.) On February 13, 2013, the 

Court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 26.) On June 4, 2013, the 

Court denied WFB’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 33.)

On October 22, 2013, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) regarding 

possible sanctions for plaintiffs’ failure to appear at a Case Management Conference scheduled for 

October 21, 2013. (Dkt. No. 57.) The Court discharged the OSC in light of a declaration filed by 

plaintiffs’ counsel indicating the failure to appear resulted from technical issues with the firm’s 

calendaring program.

On December 13, 2013, WFB filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer, to 

include additional affirmative defenses. (Dkt. No. 61.) Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated he was 

personally willing to stipulate to the filing of an amended answer, but that plaintiffs were not 

willing to do so. (Dkt. No. 61-1 at ¶¶ 4-6.) Despite their unwillingness to so stipulate, plaintiffs 

failed to file an opposition to the motion and leave to amend was granted. (Dkt. No. 65.) WFB’s 

amended answer was filed on January 6, 2014. (Dkt. No. 66.)

WFB filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 9, 2014. (Dkt. No. 67.) 

Defendant NDeX West, LLC (“NDeX”) joined in the motion. (Dkt. No. 74.)

Plaintiffs failed to appear personally at a January 15, 2014 mediation, as required by ADR 

Local Rule 6-10(a), although plaintiffs’ counsel attended. Apparently Pamela Postlewaite 

informed her counsel the night before that she could not attend for unspecified reasons and 

 

2 Counsel for plaintiffs shall provide copies of this Order in its entirety to plaintiffs by

March 6, 2015 and shall file a proof of service or declaration of compliance by March 10, 2015.

Case 4:12-cv-04465-YGR Document 134 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Marilyn Postlewaite could not attend due to her serious medical conditions. (Declaration of 

Michael Rapkine in Support of Defendant Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 120, 

“Rapkine Dec.], ¶ 2.) The Court then ordered plaintiff Pamela Postlewaite to appear personally at 

a settlement conference. That unsuccessful settlement conference was held on February 17, 2014. 

(Dkt. Nos. 78, 80.)

On September 24, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion 

for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. No. 93.)

The Court issued an Order Setting Case Schedule and Trial Date on October 31, 2014, 

setting a fact discovery cutoff of March 31, 2015, April 30, 2015 for the close of expert discovery, 

June 19, 2015 for hearing dispositive motions, and August 24, 2015 for the start of trial, among 

other hearings and deadlines. (Dkt. No. 104.) 

WFB again moved for judgment on the pleadings on October 10, 2014, arguing plaintiffs 

had failed to include as defendants two necessary parties: Yan Pan and Yaru Wang, who 

purchased the home at issue from WFB. (Dkt. No. 94.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, the 

Court subsequently granted plaintiffs’ request to add Pan and Wang as defendants and denied 

WFB’s motion as moot. (Dkt. No. 111.)

WFB moved to dismiss the case when plaintiffs failed to file a Second Amended 

Complaint by the Court-imposed deadline. (Dkt. Nos. 111-12.) However, plaintiffs ultimately 

filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 3, 2014, naming Pan and Wang as defendants, 

and WFB withdrew the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 113-14.)

WFB noticed a deposition for Pamela Postlewaite to be taken on November 7, 2014. 

(Rapkine Dec. ¶ 6.) However, several days before the deposition, plaintiffs’ counsel notified 

defendants she could not attend due to unspecified health problems and requested the deposition 

be held in December. (Id.) WFB then set a deposition for December 8, 2014. (Id. ¶ 7.) On 

December 5, 2014, plaintiffs’ counsel notified defendants that she again would be unable to attend 

due to unspecified health problems. (Id.)

On December 19, 2014, the Court, on stipulation of the parties, ordered that plaintiff 

Pamela Postlewaite attend a deposition on January 19, 2015. (Dkt. No. 116.) The Order noted 

Case 4:12-cv-04465-YGR Document 134 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

that defendants intended to bring a motion for terminating sanctions if plaintiff failed to appear at 

the deposition. (Id.) On Friday, January 16, 2015, plaintiffs’ counsel notified defendants that 

Pamela Postlewaite would not attend the deposition. (Rapkine Dec., Ex. C.)

Plaintiffs now contend, supported by a declaration from counsel but not Pamela 

Postlewaite or her physician, that she was unable to attend the mediation or three noticed 

depositions as a result of various health issues, such as “severe abdominal and back pain from her 

abdominal tumor,” limiting her ability to walk and causing her to bleed periodically. (Declaration 

of Paul J. Smoot in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 127-1, 

“Smoot Dec.”], ¶¶ 2, 6-9.) Around this time, Pamela Postlewaite was also dealing with the 

possible eviction of her mother, Marilyn, from her care facility as a result of a purported 

“accounting error/issue.” (Id. ¶ 8.)

II. WITHDRAWAL NOTIFICATION

Moreover, Plaintiffs Pamela and Marilyn Postlewaite are hereby notified of the 

following effects of an Order granting plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw: 

NOTICE TO CLIENTS WHO MAY BE UNREPRESENTED

If the action is not dismissed and the motion to withdraw is granted, you may no longer

have an attorney representing you in this case. Under those circumstances, you may wish to seek 

legal assistance. If you do not have a new attorney to represent you in this action or proceeding, 

and you are legally permitted to do so, you will be representing yourself. It will be your 

responsibility to comply with all court rules and applicable laws. If you fail to do so, or fail to 

appear at hearings, action may be taken against you. You may lose your case.

It is your duty to keep the Court informed at all times of your current address. The Court 

needs to know how to contact you. If you do not keep the Court and other parties informed of 

your current address and telephone number, they will not be able to send you notices of actions 

that may affect you, including actions that may adversely affect your interests or result in your 

losing your case.

Case 4:12-cv-04465-YGR Document 134 Filed 02/27/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

III. SCHEDULING

The hearing scheduled for March 3, 2015 on defendants’ motions to dismiss is hereby 

CONTINUED to April 7, 2015 at 9 a.m.

3

 The hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to amend the 

scheduling order currently set for April 7, 2015 at 2 p.m. shall also be held on April 7, 2015 at 9 

a.m.

This Order terminates Docket No. 131.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 

3

Thus, NDeX’s motion to appear by telephone at the March 3, 2015 hearing is DENIED AS 

MOOT.

Case 4:12-cv-04465-YGR Document 134 Filed 02/27/15 Page 5 of 5