Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01593/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01593-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HERBERT MILLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., U.S. 

BANK, N.A. as Trustee for LSF 9 

MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, 

MTC FINANCIAL, INC. d/b/a/ TRUSTEE 

CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-1593-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On July 15, 2016, defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank filed a motion to dismiss this action 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6), and noticed the motion for 

hearing on August 17, 2016. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition or statement 

of non-opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the hearing was continued to October 5, 2016, and 

plaintiff was ordered, by no later than September 21, 2016, to file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to the motion and to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his 

failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff was 

also admonished that failure to file an opposition would be deemed a statement of non-opposition 

to the granting of defendant’s motion, and could result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or failure to comply with court orders and the court’s local 

rules. Id. 

Case 2:16-cv-01593-JAM-EFB Document 14 Filed 10/03/16 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 

2

 The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motion, nor has he responded to the court’s order to show cause. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss, 

currently set for October 5, 2016, is VACATED. Defense counsel’s request to appear 

telephonically (ECF No. 13) is denied as moot. 

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 

to comply with court orders and the court’s local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Cal. E.D. L.R. 

110. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 

to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: October 3, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01593-JAM-EFB Document 14 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 2