Mohanna v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB
- Donna Ryu
- 4:21-cv-03605
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mohanna v. Wilmington, Judge Ryu dismissed the case without prejudice after Mohanna again failed to oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Keyhan Mohanna’s wrongful-foreclosure case was dismissed without prejudice. Wilmington’s pending motion to dismiss was terminated, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Mohanna v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, the court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiff’s wrongful-foreclosure lawsuit after he missed another filing deadline.
The court had previously dismissed the case when Keyhan Mohanna did not respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court reopened the case based on excusable neglect, but warned Mohanna that he had 14 days after the motion was refiled to submit an opposition or statement that he did not oppose it. The defendant refiled and served the motion, but Mohanna filed nothing by the March 15, 2022 deadline.
Judge Donna Ryu again dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court terminated the pending motion to dismiss, canceled the scheduled hearing, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Mohanna v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB · No. 4:21-cv-03605
- Donna Ryu
- Mar. 24, 2022
Background
Keyhan Mohanna brought a wrongful-foreclosure lawsuit against Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. The court had previously dismissed the case for failure to prosecute because Mohanna did not file an opposition or a statement that he did not oppose the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Mohanna then moved for reconsideration. The court reopened the case based on excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and instructed the defendant to refile its motion to dismiss. The court warned Mohanna that, because of his history of missing filing deadlines, he had to file and serve an opposition brief within 14 days after the motion was refiled, and that failing to do so could result in dismissal.
Court’s Action
The defendant refiled its motion to dismiss and certified that it served Mohanna by mail on March 1, 2022. Under the applicable local rule, Mohanna had until March 15, 2022, to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. He filed nothing.
The court again dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It terminated the pending motion to dismiss, vacated the April 14, 2022 hearing, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court did not decide the merits of the motion to dismiss or the wrongful-foreclosure claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.