Salazar v. Lehman Brothers Bank et al

Filing 17

ORDER that Pla shall have until 08/06/10 to file a response to Dfts' 16 motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Pla shall, by 08/06/10, to show cause why Dfts Faslo Solutions, Camelback Title, and MERS should not be dismissed for lack of serv ice of process by Pla pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dfts' erroneously filed 14 motion to dismiss the original complaint is denied. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Pla at the following addresses: (1) P.O. Box 11054, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85271; and (2) 18017 West Montebello Avenue, Litchfield Park, Arizona, 85340. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 07/26/10. (ESL)

Salazar v. Lehman Brothers Bank et al

Doc. 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Lehman Brothers Bank; Faslo Solutions; ) Camelback Title; MERS; Aurora Loan ) ) Services; and Quality Loan Service ) Corp., AZ, ) ) Defendants. ) Rumi Salazar,

No. CV-10-99-PHX-DGC ORDER

This action arises from a trustee's sale of real property located in Litchfield Park, Arizona. Plaintiff Rumi Salazar filed a complaint against Defendants on January 19, 2010, asserting claims for violation of federal due process rights, deprivation of rights under cognovit note, and deprivation of rights due to unconscionability and adhesion contracts. Doc. 1. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 8) and denied as moot a motion to dismiss the original complaint (Doc. 5). Doc. 11. The amended complaint purports to assert ten claims against Defendants. Doc. 13. On June 30, 2010, Defendants Lehman Brothers Bank, Aurora Loan Services, and Quality Loan Service Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim to relief. Doc. 16. Plaintiff has filed no response, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Plaintiff shall have until August 6, 2010 to file a response to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 16). Plaintiff is again advised (see Docs. 6, 11) that even though he is proceeding pro se, he is still required follow

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure. It does not appear from the case docket that Plaintiff has, as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, served process on Defendants Faslo Solutions, Camelback Title, and MERS. Rule 4(m) provides that service of process must be made within 120 days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 19, 2010. Doc. 1. The service deadline, therefore, was May 19, 2010. The Court previously warned Plaintiff that if he fails to prosecute this action, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice. Docs. 6, 11. Plaintiff shall, by August 6, 2010, show cause why Defendants Faslo Solutions, Camelback Title, and MERS should not be dismissed for lack of service. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff shall have until August 6, 2010 to file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 16). Plaintiff is warned that the Court will summarily grant the motion to dismiss if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order. See LRCiv 7.2(i); Doc. 6 at 2. 2. Plaintiff shall, by August 6, 2010, show cause why Defendants Faslo Solutions, Camelback Title, and MERS should not be dismissed for lack of service of process by Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Defendants' erroneously filed motion to dismiss the original complaint (Doc. 14) is denied. 4. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at the following addresses: (1) P.O. Box 11054, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85271; and (2) 18017 West Montebello Avenue, Litchfield Park, Arizona, 85340. DATED this 26th day of July, 2010.

-2-