Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00968/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00968-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America, N.A.
Defendant
Clear Recon Corp.
Defendant
Stephen Jackson
Plaintiff
Stewart Title
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

STEPHEN JACKSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CLEAR RECON CORP., BANK OF 

AMERICA, N.A., Successor by merger to 

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP 

FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS 

SERVICING LP, STEWART TITLE, and 

DOES 1-10., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00968 TLN AC 

ORDER 

 

 Before the court are defendant Bank of America’s motion to dismiss for lack of 

prosecution, ECF No. 34, which is set for hearing on June 22, 2016, and plaintiff’s subsequently 

filed motion to vacate, ECF No. 36, which is not noticed for hearing. Defendant’s motion is 

predicated on plaintiff’s failure to file a second amended complaint within the time he was 

ordered to so. Plaintiff’s moving papers include a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 36 at 9-

12, which plaintiff represents was previously submitted to the court in substantial compliance 

with the deadline previously set. Accordingly, the court construes the filing at ECF No. 36 as a 

Case 2:15-cv-00968-TLN-AC Document 40 Filed 06/21/16 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

motion for leave to extend the filing date for, and to file, the Second Amended Complaint. So 

construed, but only as so construed, the motion will be granted. 

 Accordingly, having considered the pending motions, all related documents, and the 

record in this case as a whole, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as 

follows: 

1. The hearing set for June 22, 2016, is VACATED; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate, ECF No. 36, is construed as a motion to file and to 

deem timely the appended Second Amended Complaint, and as such is GRANTED. In all other 

respects the motion is DENIED; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the proposed Second Amended 

Complaint, ECF No. 36 at 9-12, as a new docket entry identified as the Second Amended 

Complaint; 

4. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 34, is DENIED as moot; 

5. Defendants shall file an answer or other response to the Second Amended 

Complaint within twenty-one days of this Order. 

DATED: June 21, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00968-TLN-AC Document 40 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 2