Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05207/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05207-2/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 DISCHARGING ORDERS TO 

SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS PERMISSION TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO 

DISMISS; SETTING DEADLINE FOR

DEFENDANT’S REPLY BRIEF 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 20, 23

Plaintiffs Muhamed Almutarreb and Sophia Almutarreb filed this case on November 13, 

2015. [Docket No. 1.] On April 14, 2016 the court issued a Clerk’s Notice instructing Plaintiffs 

to file a letter informing the court of the status of service on Defendant Homeloan Corporation, 

who had not entered an appearance in the case, by April 20, 2016. [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, but counsel had not yet done so. [Docket 

No. 21.] On May 5, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to 

Defendant Homeloan Corporation. [Docket No. 24.] The court hereby discharges the April 21, 

2016 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 was filed. On April 29, 2016, Defendant Nationstar 

filed a notice of Plaintiffs’ non-opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. [Docket No. 22.] On May 2, 

Case 4:15-cv-05207-DMR Document 26 Filed 05/06/16 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

2016 the court issued an order to Plaintiffs to show cause why they failed to respond to Defendant 

Nationstar’s motion to dismiss either by filing an opposition or a statement of nonopposition to the 

motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3 (a) and (b). [Docket No. 23.] 

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a response to the order to show cause, stating that they had 

improperly calculated the deadline for their opposition because Plaintiff’s counsel was confused 

about the rules for the Northern District of California. [Docket No. 25.] Plaintiffs’ counsel states 

that he has re-familiarized himself with the Northern District of California Civil Local Rules to 

ensure compliance with the rules going forward. [Docket No. 25-1.] The court discharges the 

May 2, 2016 order to show cause, and reminds Plaintiffs that they must timely comply with the

Civil Local Rules, court instructions, and court orders in this case. Failure to do so may result in 

sanctions. 

The court hereby grants Plaintiffs permission to file an opposition to Defendant 

Nationstar’s motion to dismiss [Docket No. 16] by May 11, 2016. Plaintiffs’ are also reminded to 

provide chambers copies of their opposition.

Defendant Nationstar may file a Reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss by May 18, 

2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05207-DMR Document 26 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 2