Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01974/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01974-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 

JACOB WINDING, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LANDSAFE DEFAULT, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-01974-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 

25, 2015, defendant Landsafe Default, Inc. (“Landsafe Default”) filed a motion to dismiss noticed 

for hearing in front of the undersigned on November 4, 2015. ECF No. 43. On October 14, 2015, 

defendants Landsafe Title, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration, Inc., Recontrust Company 

N.A., Bank of America N.A., Merscorp Holding Inc., Ninoush Samimi, Michelle I. Miller, Ann 

G. Montealegre, Ahmad Afzalm (“the Remaining Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss 

improperly noticed for hearing in front of the presiding district judge. ECF No. 44. After the 

presiding district judge vacated the hearing and notified the Remaining Defendants of their 

mistake, they re-noticed their motion before the undersigned on December 2, 2015. ECF Nos. 47, 

48. On October 21, 2015, the court continued the hearing on Landsafe Default’s motion to 

dismiss to December 2, 2015, to coincide with the Remaining Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 49. 

Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition and on November 20, 2015, both Landsafe Default and 

Case 2:15-cv-01974-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 11/24/15 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 Remaining Defendants filed separate notices to that effect. ECF Nos. 50, 51. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order 

why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for 

failure to prosecute; and 

2. The court’s December 2, 2015, hearing is VACATED. 

DATED: November 23, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-01974-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 2