Stephen D. Cook, II, et al. v. NewRez LLC, et al.

E.D. California

Stephen D. Cook, II, et al. v. NewRez LLC, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 2, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-02361·Unknown

Opinion

STEPHEN D. COOK, II, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-2361-DC-JDP (PS) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE NEWREZ LLC, et al., Defendants. On October 21, 2025, defendants NewRez, LLC, Prestige Default Services, LLC, and Ghidotti Berger, LLP filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 7. To date, plaintiffs have not responded to defendants’ motion. Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The court will give plaintiffs the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The December 4, 2025 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is continued to January 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 2. By no later than December 18, 2025, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 3. Plaintiffs shall show cause, by no later than December 18, 2025, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 4. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, no later than January 8, 2026.

Dated: _ December 2, 2025 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

STEPHEN D. COOK, II, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-2361-DC-JDP (PS) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE NEWREZ LLC, et al., Defendants. On October 21, 2025, defendants NewRez, LLC, Prestige Default Services, LLC, and Ghidotti Berger, LLP filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 7. To date, plaintiffs have not responded to defendants’ motion. Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The court will give plaintiffs the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The December 4, 2025 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is continued to January 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 2. By no later than December 18, 2025, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 3. Plaintiffs shall show cause, by no later than December 18, 2025, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. 4. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, no later than January 8, 2026.

Dated: _ December 2, 2025 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Stephen D. Cook, II, et al. v. NewRez LLC, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Stephen D. Cook, II, et al. v. NewRez LLC, et al. (Stephen D. Cook, II, et al. v. NewRez LLC, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related