Udo
Udo v. Bank of America, N.A.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ETOP UDO, ET AL.,
Case No. 4:24-cv-01310-YGR Plaintiffs, 7 vs.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.,
9 Defendants.
On July 26, 2024, Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros issued an Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed (hereinafter, the “OSC”). (Dkt. No. 20.) The OSC articulated two bases on which Magistrate Judge Cisneros believed the instant case should be dismissed: (i) plaintiffs did not timely serve defendants by June 3, 2024 in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and (ii) res judicata, now referred to as issue preclusion, bars the suit. Plaintiffs were ordered to respond to these topics by no later than August 9, 2024. The OSC explicitly stated that failure to timely respond would result in the case being “reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed.” (Id. at 4.) This matter was reassigned to the undersigned on…