Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03985/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03985-0/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

1

 This is plaintiff’s second failure to oppose defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant moved to

dismiss the original complaint, and plaintiff did not file any opposition papers. Instead, after

defendant filed its reply brief, plaintiff filed her amended complaint.

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-09-3985 RMW

TER

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 1/5/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LYNN T. VO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN

ASSOCIATION, F.A.; et al.,

Defendants.

No. C-09-3985 RMW

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT

[Re Docket No. 11]

Defendants U.S. Bank National Association, successor in interest to the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation as receiver for Downey Savings and Loan Association F.A., and DSL Service

Company's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was noticed for hearing on January 8,

2010. Plaintiff did not file any timely papers in opposition to the motion,1

 but did file an overlylengthy brief, in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), on December 30, 2009, a mere nine days

before the hearing and after defendants had filed their reply papers. By filing her opposition papers

so late, plaintiff has deprived defendants of the opportunity to submit substantive reply papers and

Case 5:09-cv-03985-RMW Document 17 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-09-3985 RMW

TER 2

has deprived the court of the benefit of full briefing by the parties in advance of the noticed hearing

date. 

Accordingly, the hearing on defendants' motion is hereby continued to January 29, 2010 at

9:00 a.m. Defendants' reply papers shall be filed and served on or before January 15, 2010. As a

condition of continuing the hearing and the court's consideration of plaintiff's late-filed papers,

however, plaintiff shall reimburse defendants the reasonable attorney's fees and expenses defendants

incurred in preparing and submitting their initial reply papers (Docket No. 12) and their response to

plaintiff's late-filed opposition (Docket No. 16). By January 15, 2010, defendants' counsel shall file

and serve a declaration setting forth the amount of attorney's fees and expenses incurred in preparing

and filing such documents. Plaintiff shall reimburse defendants for such reasonable fees and

expenses prior to the hearing on January 29, 2010. If plaintiff in good faith believes that the fees

and expenses requested are unreasonable, plaintiff shall pay that portion of the request that plaintiff

considers reasonable and file a brief explanation as to why the total fees and expenses requested are

unreasonable. The court will resolve any issue as to fees and costs at the hearing on January 29,

2010. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the court will not consider plaintiff's opposition

brief and will decide the motion based on defendants' timely-filed papers.

DATED: 1/5/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-03985-RMW Document 17 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—No. C-09-3985 RMW

TER 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Sharon Lynn Lapin 

Email: lapinlaws@juno.com 

Counsel for Defendants US Bank National Association and DSL Services Co.:

Molly Rachel Newland 

Email: mnewland@sheppardmullin.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/5/10 TER

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:09-cv-03985-RMW Document 17 Filed 01/05/10 Page 3 of 3