Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05571/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05571-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILLIAN LEIVA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITI MORTGAGE INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-05571 JSW

ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

FINAL ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court has received Plaintiff’s Response to the Final Order to Show Cause issued on

February 5, 2010, and Defendants’ Reply and Objection to Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause deficient. Although

Plaintiff states that she intends to file an amended complaint, she did not provide a date by

which she intended to have that document on file. Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a), before filing an amended complaint, she must seek leave of court. 

Defendants’ objections in that regard are well-taken, as are their assertions that Plaintiff’s

response does not address the fact that Defendants moved to dismiss each claim for relief

asserted in the original complaint. 

Finally, Plaintiff has not shown good cause for her failure to respond to the motions to

dismiss or to this Court’s first order to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed

for failure to prosecute. Indeed, Plaintiff’s response that “new staff has been hired and

hopefully this type of mistake will not occur again,” is similar to the response counsel provided

in January 2010, in response to an order to show cause made in another case pending before this

Case 3:09-cv-05571-JSW Document 18 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Court. See Gonzales v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al., Docket No. 51 (Declaration of Sharon

Lapin re Order to Show Cause re Sanctions, ¶ 4.) 

Because it appears that counsel is at fault, rather than Plaintiff, the Court does not wish

to unfairly punish Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must file a

motion for leave to file an amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amended

complaint, by no later than February 26, 2010. The Court shall not entertain any requests by

Plaintiff to continue this deadline, and failure to meet that deadline shall result in the dismissal

of this case for failure to prosecute and shall result in the imposition of monetary sanctions in

the amount of $500.00 on counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05571-JSW Document 18 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2