Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05721/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05721-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation
Defendant
Jahi Ohmahree Spears
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAHI OHMAHREE SPEARS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C09-5721 TEH

ORDER VACATING

FEBRUARY 1, 2010 HEARING

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation (“First Guaranty”) filed a motion for

summary judgment on December 11, 2009, and, by second amended notice filed on

December 16, 2009, noticed this motion for hearing on February 1, 2010. Under Civil Local

Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was therefore due on

January 11, 2010. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file any response to First Guaranty’s

motion.

On January 12, 2010, this Court’s courtroom deputy telephoned and left a voice-mail

message for Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire about the missing filing. Plaintiff’s counsel has

not, to date, returned this call.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

February 1, 2010 motion hearing is VACATED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE as to why this case

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. It appears from the above history that

Plaintiff has abandoned this case. If Plaintiff fails to file a written response to this order to

show cause on or before January 20, 2010, then this matter shall be dismissed with

prejudice. If Plaintiff files a timely written response, then the Court will consider Plaintiff’s

filing and issue a subsequent case management order, which may include both a revised

Case 3:09-cv-05721-TEH Document 14 Filed 01/14/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

briefing and hearing schedule on First Guaranty’s motion and a hearing as to why sanctions

should not be imposed for Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/14/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-05721-TEH Document 14 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 2