Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01096/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01096-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNADETTE IRIGOYEN, personally )

and on behalf of all similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

FIRST GUARANTY FINANCIAL )

CORPORATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:11-CV-1096 AWI MJS

ORDER CLOSING CASE

This case involves the attempted foreclosure by Defendants against real property owned

by Plaintiff. On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of Chapter 7 bankruptcy. 

On October 20, 2011, after the Court received briefing regarding Plaintiff’s standing and

the effect of her bankruptcy on this case, the Court denied all pending motions because Plaintiff

lost her standing because the bankruptcy trustee became the real party in interest. Instead of

dismissing the case at that time, the Court gave Plaintiff two options to be followed by

November 18, 2011 – either file a notice of the bankruptcy trustee’s ratification, joinder, or

substitution pursuant to Rule 17(a)(3), or file an amended complaint that alleges, consistent with

Rule 11, that the causes of action alleged in this lawsuit are exempt from the bankruptcy estate or

that the bankruptcy trustee has abandoned the causes of action alleged in this lawsuit. See Doc.

No. 26. Importantly, the Court also stated: “The failure to abide by the time limitations in this

order will result in the dismissal of the entire action without further notice.” Id.

Case 1:11-cv-01096-AWI-BAM Document 28 Filed 12/09/11 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

As of the date of the signing of this order, there have been no further filings by any party.

1

That is, Plaintiff has not followed the Court’s October 20, 2011, order.

The Court takes Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the October 20 order, and the failure to

heed the warning regarding termination of the case, as Plaintiff’s decision to discontinue

prosecution of this matter. The Plaintiff’s failure to file either an amended complaint or involve

the trustee prevents this case from proceeding because, as Plaintiff herself conceded, Plaintiff has

no standing. Therefore, it is appropriate to close this case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, due to Plaintiff’s failure to follow the

options set forth in the October 20, 2011 order, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED due to

Plaintiff’s lack of standing, and the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 8, 2011 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

A scheduling conference was reset by the Magistrate Judge. See Doc. No. 27.

1

2

Case 1:11-cv-01096-AWI-BAM Document 28 Filed 12/09/11 Page 2 of 2