Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01532/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01532-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 12:1461 Homeowners Loan 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADELIDIA CORTEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1532-WQH-WVG

ORDER

vs.

ING Bank, FSB; INTERGRATED

LENDER SERVICES; all persons

unknown claiming to have legal,

equitable, lien, and estate against the

subject property located at 1503 Dubuque

Street, Oceanside, CA 92058; DOES 1 to

50 inclusive,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On July 7, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a Complaint

in San Diego County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A). On July 12, 2011, ING Bank, FSB

removed the action to this Court, alleging federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). On July

27, 2011, ING Bank, FSB filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 4). On September 13, 2011, the Court granted the

motion and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice as to ING Bank, FSB. (ECF No. 6). 

On March 26, 2012, the Court issued an Order stating that, “[s]ince September 13,

2011, the docket reflects that no action has been taken by any party in this case.... It appearing

to the Court that dismissal for want of prosecution may be appropriate in this case, Plaintiff

is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE [by April 30, 2012] as to why this case should not

- 1 - 11cv1532-WQH-WVG

Case 3:11-cv-01532-WQH-WVG Document 8 Filed 05/04/12 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

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.... If Plaintiff does not respond, the

Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.” To date, Plaintiff has not filed any response

to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.

Pursuant to Local Rule 41.1, “[a]ctions or proceedings which have been pending in this

court for more than six months, without any proceeding or discovery having been taken therein

during such period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the court for want of prosecution.” S.D.

Cal. Civ. Local Rule 41.1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f the

plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply... with a court order,” the plaintiff’s claim may be

dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff has failed to comply with the March 26, 2012 Order

to Show Cause, and Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action for over six months.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DATED: May 4, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 11cv1532-WQH-WVG

Case 3:11-cv-01532-WQH-WVG Document 8 Filed 05/04/12 Page 2 of 2