Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00880/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00880-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ernie Altmann
Plaintiff
Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC
Defendant
Trustee Corps
Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNIE ALTMANN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability 

Company; WELLS FARGO BANK, a 

division of Wells Fargo, N.A.;

and TRUSTEE CORPS,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00880-GEB-GSA

ORDER

This Order issues because of representations made by 

each Defendant in a dismissal motion and by Plaintiff in his 

opposition to each Defendant’s dismissal motion concerning the 

following prior action filed in this district: Altmann v. PNC 

Mortg., No. 1:11-cv-01807-LJO-MJS. (See Trustee Corp.’s Mot. 

Dismiss 1:7-11, ECF No. 29-1 (stating: “[T]he . . . [d]istrict 

[c]ourt already adjudicated the issues in this case in the case 

entitled [Altmann], et al. v. PNC Mortg[.], et al., . . . No. 

1:11-cv-[01807]); Rushmore and Wells Fargo’s Mot. Dismiss 5:21-

24, ECF No. 23 (stating: “the same claims against [Defendants in 

the instant case] . . . were previously dismissed by th[e c]ourt 

[in Plaintiff’s 2011 case filed as 1:11-cv-01807]”); Pl.’s Opp’n 

to Defs.’ Mot 2:2-3, ECF No. 27-1 (indicating that the instant 

Case 1:15-cv-00880-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 08/20/15 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

case is based on “new facts that were unavailable to Plaintiff” 

at the time 1:11-cv-01807 was pending.))

Since Local Rule 123(b) obligates counsel to “promptly 

file in each action . . . a Notice of Related Cases” document 

when “[c]ounsel . . . has reason to believe that an action . . . 

may be related to another action on file (whether or not 

dismissed . . . ),” a party shall file a Notice of Related Cases 

document no later than August 24, 2015 in each action opined to 

be related. Alternatively, each party shall show cause (“OSC”) 

why a sanction should not be imposed for failure to comply with 

Local Rule 123 in a filing due no later than August 24, 2015. If 

a hearing is desired on the OSC, it shall be requested in the 

response to the OSC. 

Further, the pending dismissal motions are deemed 

withdrawn because of each counsel’s failure to comply with Local 

Rule 123, but can be re-noticed for hearing after a decision is 

filed on the Notice of Related Cases issue.

Dated: August 19, 2015

Case 1:15-cv-00880-LJO-MJS Document 32 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2