(PS) Spikes v. NewRez LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 26, 20242:24-cv-00046California932 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AYANNA UMEKA SPIKES, No. 2:24-cv-0046 DAD DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14 NEWREZ LLC, F/K/A NEW

PENNFINANCIAL, LLC D/B/A

15 SHELLPOINT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Ayanna Umeka Spikes is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 19 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On January 12, 2024, defendants McCarthy & Holthus, LPP, and Melissa Robbins Coutts filed a 21 motion to dismiss, which is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on March 29, 2024, 22 pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). (ECF Nos. 4 & 5.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) plaintiff 23 was to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion not less “than 24 fourteen (14) days after the motion was filed.” Plaintiff, however, failed to file a timely 25 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion. 26 Accordingly, on February 15, 2024, the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.