Rosa Noemi Garcia v. IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. et al
Filing
10
ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: granting 6 Defendants OneWest Bank, F.S.B. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. (lc)
<![CDATA[
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ROSE NOEMI GARCIA, an individual,
v.
Plaintiff,
INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; FIRST
AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Business Entity, form
unknown; ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., a
Business Entity, form unknown; NDEX
WEST LLC, a Business Entity, form
unknown; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1–50,
inclusive,
Case No. 2:12-cv-02997-ODW(MANx)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS [6]
Defendants.
20
21
Before the Court is Defendants OneWest Bank, F.S.B. and Mortgage Electronic
22
Registration Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Rosa Noemi Garcia’s
23
Complaint. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed an Opposition on April 26, 2012, to which
24
Defendants filed a Reply on May 7, 2012. (ECF Nos. 7, 9.) Having carefully
25
considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the instant Motion, the
26
Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.
27
Civ. P. 78; C. D. Cal. L. R. 7-15.
28
1
Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s over-sized Opposition1 fails to address
2
any of the substantive arguments advanced in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
3
Instead, Plaintiff appears to have cobbled together portions of oppositions taken from
4
other cases to (loosely) describe how she feels she has adequately pleaded her various
5
claims against Defendants.
6
substantive arguments, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion as unopposed.
Because Plaintiff failed to address Defendants’
7
In addition to the reasons contained in Defendants’ Motion, the Court finds
8
Plaintiff’s Complaint deficient in other ways, including the failure to comply with
9
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8. Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading contain a
10
short and plain statement of a claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
11
Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff must
12
plead a short and plain statement of the elements of her claim, “identifying the
13
transaction or occurrence giving rise to the claim and the elements of a prima facie
14
case.” Id. Further, Plaintiff must eliminate all preambles, introductions, argument,
15
speeches, explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate
16
possible defenses, summaries, and the like from her Complaint. McHenry v. Renne,
17
84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court should be able to read and understand
18
Plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. Id. at 1177.
19
Although the Court is required to give pro se plaintiffs some leniency in terms
20
of procedure, the complaint must still be adequately pleaded. See Eldridge v. Block,
21
832 F.2d 1132, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 1987). A complaint that is unintelligible serves no
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff’s Opposition was 37 pages, which is 12 pages in excess of the 25-page limit established by Local Rule 11-6.
Plaintiff’s Opposition also failed to include a table of contents or a table of authorities in violation of Local Rule 11-8.
Plaintiff is reminded of the Court’s admonition in its April 9, 2012 Self-Representation Order that
when you elect to proceed pro se, you are on your own and become personally responsible for
litigating your action in accordance with the rules. Practice in the federal courts is governed by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You must become familiar with these rules. You will be held to the
same standards as a lawyer as far as complying with court procedures and regulations of the court
system.
(Self-Representation Order, ECF No. 5.) Future failures to comply with the Federal Rules—including the Central
District of California Local Rules—may result in adverse consequences to Plaintiff, including documents being stricken
from the docket and possible sanctions.
2
1
purpose and does more harm than good.
And it requires all parties—Plaintiff,
2
Defendants, and the Court—to expend resources just trying to decipher the prose.
3
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is 76 pages long. It alleges 30 claims, many of
4
which are duplicative of other claims and contain generalized complaints about
5
mortgage practices during the “mortgage crisis.” See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 31. But what is
6
worse, the Complaint contains little more than boilerplate allegations relating to
7
speculative wrongful acts by the mortgage and financial industries without the factual
8
support demanded by Iqbal to survive a motion to dismiss. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
9
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
10
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (internal quotation marks
11
omitted)). Accordingly, in any further pleadings Plaintiff must include additional
12
facts describing what Defendants have specifically done to Plaintiff.
13
In sum, because Plaintiff failed to substantively oppose Defendants’ Motion and
14
because Plaintiff’s Complaint violates the “short and plain” requirement of Rule 8,
15
Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff
16
may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. Failure to do
17
so will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. If Plaintiff does choose to
18
amend, she must address all of those shortcomings in her pleadings identified in
19
Defendants’ Motion by pleading—in good faith and in compliance with Rule 11—
20
additional facts supporting her claims. If Plaintiff cannot allege new facts in good
21
faith to support one or more of her claims, Rule 11 dictates that Plaintiff must discard
22
such claims.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
Finally, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff is the sole author of her
2
Complaint or Opposition—it appears Plaintiff acquired (poor) templates and modified
3
them to suit her needs. The Court discourages this practice. Instead, Plaintiff is
4
advised that a Federal Pro Se Clinic is located in the United States Courthouse at 312
5
N. Spring Street, Room 525, Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012. The clinic is
6
open for appointments on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 9:30 a.m. to
7
12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Federal Pro Se Clinic offers free, on-site
8
information and guidance to individuals who are representing themselves in federal
9
civil actions. For more information, Plaintiff may visit http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/
10
and follow the link for “Pro Se Clinic – Los Angeles” or contact Public Counsel at
11
213-385-2977, extension 270. Plaintiff is encouraged to visit the clinic prior to filing
12
her amended complaint for advice concerning her case.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
May 16, 2012
17
18
19
____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
