Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02983/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02983-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EMILIA C. REYES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-02983-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Docket No. 42 

Plaintiff Emilia C. Reyes, proceeding pro se, has filed a foreclosure-related action against 

Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Cal-Western Reconveyance, LLC (“CWR”). She 

initiated the suit in state court; Wells Fargo removed to this Court on the basis of diversity 

jurisdiction, contending, inter alia, that CWR’s citizenship should be ignored because it had been 

fraudulently joined. 

Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the case, but subsequently the parties appeared to reach a 

settlement and thus the motion was vacated. See Docket No. 22 (order). The settlement, however, 

was never finalized – apparently because Ms. Reyes failed to respond to Wells Fargo. See Docket 

No. 29 (civil minutes). At a case management conference in December 2015, Ms. Reyes failed to 

make an appearance. The Court instructed Wells Fargo to continue to try to make contact with 

Ms. Reyes and set a further case management conference for February 2016. The Court noted 

that, if Ms. Reyes did not appear for the February 2016 case management conference, then it 

would issue an order to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed. See Docket No. 

29 (civil minutes). 

In February 2016, the Court held the further case management conference, for which Ms. 

Reyes did make an appearance. At the conference, the Court referred the case to mediation and 

Case 3:15-cv-02983-EMC Document 48 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

For the Northern District of California 

noted that Wells Fargo could re-notice its motion to dismiss if no settlement was reached. See 

Docket No. 32 (civil minutes). 

The case did not settle at mediation. See Docket No. 37 (certification). Thus, Wells Fargo 

filed its motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 39 (motion). After Ms. Reyes failed to file an 

opposition to the motion to dismiss, the Court issued an order instructing Ms. Reyes to show cause 

as to why her case should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to oppose the motion to 

dismiss and/or for failure to prosecute. See Docket No. 42 (order). The order to show cause was 

mailed to Ms. Reyes but was returned to the Court as undeliverable.1 See Docket No. 45 (returned 

mail). Court staff reached out to Ms. Reyes by telephone but Ms. Reyes did not respond. 

Taking into account the above circumstances, the Court hereby rules as follows. The 

Court shall give Ms. Reyes one final opportunity to show cause as to why her claims against Wells 

Fargo should not be dismissed for failure to oppose Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss and/or failure 

to prosecute. In her response, Ms. Reyes must also address the merits of Wells Fargo’s motion to 

dismiss. 

The Court notes that, aside from Wells Fargo, there is another defendant in this case, i.e., 

CWR. CWR has not made an appearance in this case as of yet. It is not clear from the record 

whether Ms. Reyes has served CWR (who, as noted above, Wells Fargo argues was fraudulently 

joined). The Court further orders Ms. Reyes to show cause as to why her claims against CWR 

should not be dismissed based on fraudulent joinder and/or failure to prosecute. 

Ms. Reyes’s response to this order to show cause shall be filed by September 7, 2016. If 

Ms. Reyes fails to file a response to this order to show cause by September 7, then the Court 

shall automatically dismiss her case with prejudice. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

 

1

 It is not clear why the order was returned as undeliverable when other filings have been mailed 

successfully. 

Case 3:15-cv-02983-EMC Document 48 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

For the Northern District of California 

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to serve a copy of this order on Ms. Reyes by mail at 

the address she has provided. The case management conference set for September 1, 2016, is 

hereby VACATED. The conference shall be rescheduled, as necessary, following Ms. Reyes’s 

response to the order to show cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 17, 2016

______________________________________ 

EDWARD M. CHEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02983-EMC Document 48 Filed 08/17/16 Page 3 of 3