Global Acquisitions Network et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 119

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiffs to showcause why this action should not be dismissed as implausible. Plaintiffs are ordered to file a brief, not to exceed five pages, by January 17, 2014, showing cause why this action should not be dismissed as implausible. The brief must be accompanied by a declaration attesting to the facts contained in the brief, signed under penalty of perjury. Failure to file a response will result indismissal of this action with prejudice. (lc)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

GLOBAL ACQUISITIONS NETWORK,
a Wyoming corporation; SHAWN
CORNEILLE, an individual,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation;
ORIANA CAPITAL PARTNERS,LLC,
a Connecticut limited
liability company; ZANCO, a
company of unknown business
form, HLB FINANCIAL, LLC, a
company of unknown form; W/C
INVESTMETN HOLDINGS INC., a
Florida corporatin; DEXTER
CHAPPELL, an individual;
VALERIE CHAPPELL, an
individual; JON LEARY, an
individual; GLEN McINERNEY
also known as LARRY BENNETT,
an individual; CHRISTOPHER
RAY ZANCO, an individual;
BERNARD WOODSON, an
individual,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-08758 DDP (CWx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A PLAUSIBLE
CLAIM

26
27
28

As previously noted, the Court “has serious doubts about the
plausibility of the scenario alleged by Plaintiffs” (Docket No. 38,

1

p. 6). Plaintiffs seek over $31 million dollars in total damages

2

based on pleaded facts that this Court seriously doubts actually

3

occurred. (FAC, Docket No. 48. Specifically, the Court is dubious

4

that anyone would agree, as Plaintiffs allege they did, to depart

5

with something of high value based on oral representations made by

6

an unknown individual over the phone. Further, though the “face

7

value” of the CMOs is allegedly billions of dollars, they may in

8

fact be worthless. Those doubts have not been alleviated through

9

the course of the litigation. As a result, the Court has declined

10

to enter a default judgment against any Defendant in this action.

11

Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel has requested and been granted

12

withdrawal from this action, which adds to the Court’s concern

13

about the legitimacy of the underlying claims. (Docket No. 117.))

14

Therefore, the Court issues this order to Plaintiffs to show

15

cause why this action should not be dismissed as implausible.

16

Plaintiffs are ordered to file a brief, not to exceed five pages,

17

by January 17, 2014, showing cause why this action should not be

18

dismissed as implausible. The brief must be accompanied by a

19

declaration attesting to the facts contained in the brief, signed

20

under penalty of perjury. Failure to file a response will result in

21

dismissal of this action with prejudice.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: December 27, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2