Richard P. Dagres et al v. Countrywide Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 42

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: AMENDED PLEADINGS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 2/25/2014, plaintiff filed an "amended complaint," purporting to assert a "Twelfth Cause of Action Defective Notice of Default" 9 . It appears th at plaintiff intended this amended complaint to supplement his original complaint, rather than stand alone as a new operative pleading. On 4/16/2014, defendants Countrywide, Deutsche Bank, MERS, Nationstar, and RecontTrust filed a motion to dismiss [ 33]. This motion to dismiss treats the amended complaint as the operative pleading, and therefore only discusses plaintiff"s "Twelfth Cause of Action Defective Notice of Default." The Court finds that the following steps are necessary to ensure the orderly resolution of this case: Plaintiff shall have leave to file a second amended complaint on or before 5/27/2014. This second amended complaint will be the operative complaint as to all defendants. The hearing on the pending motion dismiss, currently scheduled for 5/19/2014, is hereby vacated. Upon plaintiff's filing of the second amended complaint, the pending motion to dismiss will be denied as moot. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:14-cv-01339-CAS(CWx)

Title

RICHARD P. DAGRES V. COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A. ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 13, 2014

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In chambers:) ORDER RE: AMENDED PLEADINGS (dkt. 33,
filed April 16, 2014)

Plaintiff Richard Dagres, proceeding pro se, filed this case in this Court on
February 21, 2014, against defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc.
(“GFCP”), Greenwich Capital Acceptance, Inc. (“GCA”), Countrywide Home Loan
Servicing LP (“Countrywide”), MERSCORP Inc. (“MERS”), Nationstar Mortgage
(“Nationstar”), ReconTrust Company N.A. (“ReconTrust”), and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive. Plaintiff asserts claims for (1) lack of standing to foreclose, (2) fraud in the
concealment, (3) fraud in the inducement, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress
(“IIED”), (5) quiet title, (6) slander of title, (7) declaratory relief, (8) violation of the
Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, (9) violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, (10) rescission, and (11)
“beyond the statute of limitations.” Dkt. 1.
On February 25, 2014, plaintiff filed an “amended complaint,” purporting to assert
a “Twelfth Cause of Action – Defective Notice of Default.” Dkt. 9. It appears that
plaintiff intended this amended complaint to supplement his original complaint, rather
than stand alone as a new operative pleading.
On March 17, 2014, defendants GFCP and GCA moved to dismiss this claim as to
them. Dkt. 26. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition. Based on plaintiff’s non-opposition,
the Court granted GFCP and GCA’s motion without prejudice on April 21, 2014. Dkt.
36. The Court gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before May 19,
2014. Id.
On April 16, 2014, defendants Countrywide, Deutsche Bank, MERS, Nationstar,
and RecontTrust filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 33. This motion to dismiss treats the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:14-cv-01339-CAS(CWx)

Date

May 13, 2014

Title

RICHARD P. DAGRES V. COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A. ET AL.

amended complaint as the operative pleading, and therefore only discusses plaintiff’s
“Twelfth Cause of Action – Defective Notice of Default.” On May 9, 2014, plaintiff
filed an untimely opposition. Dkt. 37. Among other things, plaintiff’s opposition asserts
that he intended the amended complaint to supplement the operative complaint, and that
defendants should therefore be required to respond to all of plaintiff’s claims. Id.
Plaintiff requests leave to file a new amended complaint consolidating his claims, as well
as asserting new claims.
The Court finds that the following steps are necessary to ensure the orderly
resolution of this case:
1. Plaintiff shall have leave to file a second amended complaint on or before May
27, 2014. This second amended complaint will be the operative complaint as to
all defendants. Plaintiff may not assert any claims in this second amended
complaint that he did not previously assert in his original complaint and
amended complaint.
2. The hearing on the pending motion dismiss, currently scheduled for May 19,
2014, is hereby vacated. Upon plaintiff’s filing of the second amended
complaint, the pending motion to dismiss will be denied as moot. The moving
defendants, as well as all other defendants, may then move to dismiss the
second amended complaint.
3. Plaintiff is directed to review the Central District of California Local Rules,
which are available online at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/
local-rules/. The Court admonishes plaintiff to comply with all applicable local
rules. In particular, the Court expects that plaintiff will file all oppositions no
later than three weeks before the motion is set for hearing, as required by Local
Rule 7-9. Future failures to file oppositions in a timely manner may result in
those oppositions being stricken, the dismissal of this action, or other
appropriate relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2