Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

N.D. California

Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

DecidedJanuary 3, 2022

Docket4:21-cv-07637

StatusUnknown

This text of Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (N.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CEDRIC ARMSTRONG-HARRIS, Case No. 21-cv-07637-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER VACATING CASE 9 v. MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff Cedric Armstrong-Harris filed a complaint against Defendants 13 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Specialized Loan Servicing in Alameda Superior 14 Court. Dkt. No. 1. On September 29, 2021, Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court. Id. 15 On October 6, 2021, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. No. 7, and 16 represents that it served the motion on Plaintiff that same day, Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff’s opposition 17 to the motion to dismiss was due on or before October 20, 2021. See Civil L.R. 7-3 (“The 18 opposition must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was filed.”). Plaintiff did not file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition by the deadline, as required by Civil 19 Local Rule 7-3(b). Wells Fargo filed a notice of non-opposition on November 2, 2022. Dkt. No. 20 14. Plaintiff has not made any filing before this Court since Wells Fargo removed the case. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that where a “plaintiff fails to prosecute or 22 to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any 23 claim against it.” A defendant need not file a motion in order for a district court to dismiss a case 24 under Rule 41(b), given the Supreme Court’s statement that “[t]he authority of a court to dismiss 25 sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed 26 not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs[.]” 27 See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be 2 || dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff shall file a statement of no more 3 || than two pages by January 17, 2022. In addition, the case management conference set for January 4 || 4, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: 1/3/2022 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CEDRIC ARMSTRONG-HARRIS, Case No. 21-cv-07637-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER VACATING CASE 9 v. MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff Cedric Armstrong-Harris filed a complaint against Defendants 13 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Specialized Loan Servicing in Alameda Superior 14 Court. Dkt. No. 1. On September 29, 2021, Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court. Id. 15 On October 6, 2021, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. No. 7, and 16 represents that it served the motion on Plaintiff that same day, Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff’s opposition 17 to the motion to dismiss was due on or before October 20, 2021. See Civil L.R. 7-3 (“The 18 opposition must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was filed.”). Plaintiff did not file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition by the deadline, as required by Civil 19 Local Rule 7-3(b). Wells Fargo filed a notice of non-opposition on November 2, 2022. Dkt. No. 20 14. Plaintiff has not made any filing before this Court since Wells Fargo removed the case. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that where a “plaintiff fails to prosecute or 22 to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any 23 claim against it.” A defendant need not file a motion in order for a district court to dismiss a case 24 under Rule 41(b), given the Supreme Court’s statement that “[t]he authority of a court to dismiss 25 sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed 26 not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs[.]” 27 See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962). 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be 2 || dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff shall file a statement of no more 3 || than two pages by January 17, 2022. In addition, the case management conference set for January 4 || 4, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: 1/3/2022 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Armstrong-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-harris-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-cand-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack