Chico v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 BENIGNO G. CHICO, et al., Case No. 20-cv-01963-PJH 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 10 11 Defendants.

14 On March 27, 2020, defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and U.S. Bank, N.A.

15 moved to dismiss plaintiffs Benigno G. Chico and Helen O. Chico’s complaint. Dkt. 10.

16 Plaintiffs’ deadline to oppose that motion was April 10, 2020. That deadline has now passed without the court receiving plaintiffs’ opposition or Statement of Non-opposition.1 See Civ. L.R. 7-3.

19 Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for their failure to oppose defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs shall file and serve an opposition to defendants’ motion or a Statement of Non-opposition not more than seven days from the date on which this order is filed. If plaintiffs file an opposition, defendants shall file any reply brief not more than seven days after the opposition brief is due. Failure to comply with this order in a timely fashion will result in On March 30, 2020, the court referred the parties to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Unit for a telephone conference. Dkt. 12. That phone conference occurred on April 13, 2020 (Dkt. 15) and the court understands the parties do not wish to participate in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute, and to comply with a court order. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 3 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: April 27, 2020 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge