1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ANGEL JIMINIAN, et al., Case No.: 1:25-cv-00885-JLT-SKO

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER WITHDRAWING DECEMBER 3, 2025 FINDINGS AND 13 RECOMMENDATIONS, v. DISCHARGING THE COURT’S

14 NOVEMBER 4, 2025 ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE, & INVITING DEFENDANTS 15 PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES, et al., TO FILE AN OPTIONAL REPLY

16 Defendants. (Docs. 3, 8, 9, 11)

17 _____________________________________/ 18 19 Plaintiffs Angel Jiminian and Mercedes Jiminian (collectively “Plaintiffs”) proceed pro se 20 in this action that was removed from Fresno County Superior Court by Defendants PHH Mortgage 21 Services and NewRez LLC (collectively “Defendants”) on July 21, 2025. (Doc. 1.) 22 On October 14, 2025, Defendants filed the now-pending Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 3 23 (“MTD”)). On October 16, 2025, the assigned District Court judge referred the motion to the 24 undersigned for the preparation of findings and recommendations. (Doc. 5). 25 While Plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss was due on October 31, 2025, no 26 response or opposition was filed. (See Docket). On November 4, 2025, the undersigned issued 27 an order requiring Plaintiffs to show cause (“OSC”) within twenty-one days why the action should 28 not be dismissed for failure to respond to the motion to dismiss as required by the Local Rules for 1 the Eastern District of California (the “local rules”) and for failure to prosecute this case. (Doc. 2 8.) Plaintiffs were warned in the OSC that failure to comply with the OSC would result in a 3 recommendation to the presiding district judge of the dismissal of this action. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs 4 again did not respond, (see Docket), and on December 3, 2025, the undersigned issued findings 5 and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to Plaintiffs’ failure to 6 obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. 9). 7 On December 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed objections to the December 3, 2025 Findings and 8 Recommendations, (Doc. 10), and the opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 11). 9 Plaintiffs contend that their opposition to the motion to dismiss was not docketed due to a “postal 10 or clerical error,” (Doc. 10 at 1), a claim Defendants challenge as lacking in plausibility, (Doc. at 11 2–3). 12 While the Court is sympathetic to the Defendants’ contentions regarding the plausibility 13 of Plaintiffs’ explanations of delay and Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the OSC, out of an 14 abundance of caution and consistent with the premise that public policy favors disposition on the 15 merits, see e.g., Hernandez v. City of El Monte,

, 399 (9th Cir. 1998), the undersigned 16 will withdraw its December 3, 2025 and issue new findings and recommendations addressing the 17 pending motion to dismiss on the merits. 18 To reduce any prejudice, Defendants may file an optional reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition 19 by no later than December 31, 2025. Consistent with Eastern District of California Local Rule 20 230(m), the Court instructs Plaintiffs that upon Defendants’ reply, “no additional memoranda, or 21 other materials may be filed without prior Court approval” (except for any filings expressly 22 exempted) prior to the issuance of the undersigned’s findings and recommendations on the Motion 23 to Dismiss. 24 Consistent with this order, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The Order to Show Cause, (Doc. 8), is DISCHARGED; 26 2. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 4, 2025, (Doc. 9) are 27 WITHDRAWN; and 28 1 3. Defendants PHH Mortgage Services and NewRez LLC are invited to file an 2 optional reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition, (Doc. 11), to Defendants’ Motion to 3 Dismiss, (Doc. 3), by no later than December 31, 2025. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 Dated: December 19, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28