Urbano et al v. Countrywide Bank, N.A. et al
||Marcella Urbano and Emmanuel Urbano
||Countrywide Bank, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Recontrust Company, N.A., Reconstruct Company N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. and Bank of America, N.A.
||August 5, 2011
||US District Court for the Eastern District of California
||Dale A. Drozd
||Garland E. Burrell
|Nature of Suit:
||Truth in Lending
|Cause of Action:
||15 U.S.C. § 1601
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|November 29, 2011
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/28/11 RECOMMENDING that Defendants' August 11, 2011 motion to dismiss 11 be deemed unopposed and, so deemed, be granted; Plaintiffs' claims against all defendants be dismissed with prejudice due to lack of prosecution, as evidenced by plaintiffs' failure to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants, failure to appear at the hearing of the moti on to dismiss, and failure to prosecute the action in any manner since August 5, 2011; and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)
|October 6, 2011
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/5/2011 ORDERING that Plaintiffs shall show good cause in writing, no later than October 27, 2011, for failing to respond to defendants' motion and shall show why sanctions should not be imposed on them for failing to file timely opposition or non-opposition to the motion and for failing to appear at the properly noticed hearing of the motion. Any response to this order must be filed with the court and served on defendants 39; attorney of record. If plaintiffs file opposition to defendants' motion on or before October 27, 2011, defendants' reply, if any, shall be filed and served no later than November 10, 2011. Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to file and serve a written response to thisorder, along with opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the granting of defendants' motion to dismiss this action with prejudice and will also constitute grounds for imposing appropriate sanctions, including dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules and for lack of prosecution. (Duong, D)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?