Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05207/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05207-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

MUHAMED ALMUTARREB, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HOMELOAN CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05207-DMR 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed a motion to dismiss on April 13, 2016. [Docket 

No. 16.] Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any brief in opposition to Defendant’s motion was 

due on April 27, 2016, but no such opposition has been received. Plaintiffs Muhamed Almutarreb 

and Sophia Almutarreb are ordered to respond by May 5, 2016, and show cause for their failure to 

respond to the motion in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternatively to file a 

statement of nonopposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). This order to 

show cause does not constitute permission to file a late opposition. If Plaintiffs Muhamed 

Almutarreb and Sophia Almutarreb do not respond by May 5, 2016, Defendant’s motion may be 

granted or the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Further, on April 14, 2016, the court instructed Plaintiffs to file a letter by April 20, 2016 

regarding the status of service on Defendant Homeloan Corporation. [Docket No. 19.] Plaintiffs 

did not respond. On April 21, 2016, the court issued an order to Plaintiffs to show cause why they 

failed to timely comply with the court’s instruction. [Docket No. 20.] On April 25, 2016, 

Plaintiffs filed a response. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that Defendant Homeloan Corporation 

appears to be defunct and has not been served. Counsel represented that Plaintiffs have given him 

authority to dismiss Defendant Homeloan Corporation and he would do so in the near future. 

Plaintiff has not yet filed a dismissal of Defendant Homeloan Corporation. By May 9, 2016, 

Case 4:15-cv-05207-DMR Document 23 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiffs shall file a dismissal of Defendant Homeloan Corporation or a status report explaining 

why they have not done so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05207-DMR Document 23 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2