In Bank v. Peterkin, 52 S.C. 236, 29 S.E., 546, the plaintiff brought an action to foreclose a mortgage, and the record does not indicate that there was any allegation of possession, either in the mortgagee or the mortgagor.Summary of this case from Investment Co. v. Lumber Co.
Case No. SA CV 11-1631 DOC (ANx)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER , JUDGE
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS AS UNOPPOSED
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 7) filed on February 10, 2012, by Defendant Bank of America ("Defendant"). Plaintiff's original Complaint was previously dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant's prior motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff's Opposition to the present Motion to Dismiss was due on February 20, 2012. At present, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not grant the Motion to Dismiss as unopposed pursuant to Local Rules 7-9 and 7-12. Plaintiff may file an Opposition on or before March 5, 2012, and such a filing shall be deemed sufficient to discharge this Order to Show Cause, with no other explanation required.
If Plaintiff does file an opposition by March 5, 2012, Defendant's Reply shall be due on or before March 12, 2012, and the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss will be rescheduled to March 19, 2012. If Plaintiff does not file an opposition by March 5, 2012, the Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.