Jose Vargas et al v. Bank of America N A et al

Filing 20

JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: As PLAINTIFFS have failed to amend their Complaint within the time allowed by the Court, and for the reasons explained in DEFENDANTS' Motion to Dismiss, the Court hereby DISMISSES THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)

McCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP
David C. Scott, Esq. (SBN: 225893)
Rachel Opatik, Esq. (SBN: 243140)
2 1770 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
3 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
4 Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
1

JS-6

5
6
7

Attorneys for Defendants,
Bank of America, N.A. and
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1770 FOURTH AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
TELEPHONE [phone] FACSIMILE [phone]

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

McCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP

10
11

JOSE VARGAS, an Individual, and
JOAQUINA VARGAS, an Individual

Case No. 2:11-CV-05419-CAS -PLA

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION;
FEERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18

JUDGMENT
Complaint Filed: May 6, 2011
Trial Date: None

19

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 12, 2011, Defendants

20

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A (“BOA”) and FEDERAL HOME LOAN

21

MORTGAGE (“FREDDIE MAC”) (collectively “DEFENDANTS”)’s Motion to

22

Dismiss came for hearing.

23

without prejudice the Vargases' complaint insofar as it seeks the nullification of the

24

foreclosure sale, DISMISSES without prejudice the Vargases' claims for unjust

25

enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, and

26

DISMISSES without prejudice the Vargases' claim for unconscionability as against

27

Freddie Mac. The Vargases shall have 20 days from the date of this order to file an

28

amended complaint.”

The Civil Minutes state, “The Court DISMISSES

1

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1

To date, PLAINTIFFS have not filed an amended complaint.

2

As PLAINTIFFS have failed to amend their Complaint within the time

3

allowed by the Court, and for the reasons explained in DEFENDANTS’ Motion to

4

Dismiss, the Court hereby DISMISSES THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: February 1, 2012

By:
Hon. Christina A. Snyder
Judge of United States District Court

9

1770 FOURTH AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
TELEPHONE [phone] FACSIMILE [phone]

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

McCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT