Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02267/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02267-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael M. Baker
Defendant
Bank of America Corporation
Defendant
Bobbie Eddy
Plaintiff
Mark Eddy
Plaintiff
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Defendant
Service Link, LLC
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 

MARK EDDY; BOBBIE EDDY, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION (As Trustee for Freddie 

Mac MultiClass Certificates Series 3450); 

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 

(As Parent to Bank of America, M.A., as 

Successor in Interest By Merger with 

Countrywide Bank, FSB); SERVICE 

LINK, LLC; MICHAEL M. BAKER, Esq.; 

Does 1-5, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2267-TLN-EFB PS 

ORDER 

 Defendants Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Bank of America Corporation 

filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6), which they noticed for hearing on April 1, 2020. ECF No. 46. In violation of 

Local Rule 230(c), plaintiffs failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

the pending motion. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion was continued to May 6, 2020, and 

plaintiffs were ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to 

timely respond to defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs were also ordered to file, by April 22, 2020, an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 

Case 2:18-cv-02267-KJM-EFB Document 49 Filed 04/16/20 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 

 In response, plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension to time requesting that the hearing 

on the motion be continued an additional 30 days. Plaintiffs contend that the additional time is 

needed due to, among other things, the current Covid-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs, however, did not 

file a response to FHLMC’s motion, nor did they show cause for why sanctions should not be 

imposed for their failure to timely respond to the motion. 

 In light of plaintiffs’ pro se status, and given that they have not yet filed an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion, their request for an extension of time will be 

granted in part. Plaintiffs are admonished that the court is not inclined to grant any further 

extensions of time absent a showing of extraordinary cause. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 46) is continued to May 27, 

2020 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 8. 

 2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than May 13, 2020, why sanctions 

should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 

defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

 3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to defendants’ motion, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than May 13, 2020. 

 4. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of nonopposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of 

prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, on or before May 20, 

2020. 

DATED: April 16, 2020. 

 

Case 2:18-cv-02267-KJM-EFB Document 49 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 2