Carmen Risiglione et al v. Martingale Investments LLC et al

Filing 18

MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court GRANTS without prejudice defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint 10 , 14 . Plaintiffs shall have until 11/6/2014 to file an amended complaint. If plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint by this date, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (gk)

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

2:14-cv-05537-CAS(ASx)

Title

CARMEN RISIGLIONE ET AL. V. MARTINGALE INVESTMENTS
LLC ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’

October 6, 2014

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Laura Elias
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

William Brown, Jr.
Helen Cayton

Proceedings:

DEFENDANTS MARTINGALE INVESTMENTS, LLC, SAM
CHANDRA, AND FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS(Filed 08/29/14)[10] and
(Filed 09/03/14)[11]
DEFENDANT QUALITY LOAN SERVICES CORPORATION’S
MOTION TO DISMISS (Filed 09/18/14)[14]

On July 16, 2014, plaintiffs Carmen and Daniel Risiglione filed this action against
defendants Martingale Investments, LLC, Quality Loan Services Corp., First American
Title Insurance Company, Sam Chandra, and Does 1-10 (collectively, “defendants”).
Dkt. 1. Plaintiff asserts claims for (1) quiet title and adverse possession; (2) fraud; (3)
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961,
et seq. (“RICO”); (4) violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1961, et seq. (“FDCPA”); (5) violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1601, et seq. (“CCPA”); (6) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (7) violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983; (8) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985; (9) conspiracy against rights in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 241; (10) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (11) breach of
contract; (12) tortious interference with business contracts; (13) violation of the
“Deceptive Trade Practices statutes of this state”; (14) invasion of privacy in violation of
the U.S. Constitution an the California Constitution; (15) trespass; (16) civil conspiracy;
(17) unjust enrichment; (18) negligent misrepresentation; and (19) cancellation of
fraudulent mortgage. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive and declaratory relief.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:14-cv-05537-CAS(ASx)

October 6, 2014

Title

CARMEN RISIGLIONE ET AL. V. MARTINGALE INVESTMENTS
LLC ET AL.

On August 29, 2014, defendants Martingale Investments, LLC, and Sam Chandra
filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 10.
Defendant First American Title Insurance joined this motion on September 3, 2014. Dkt.
11. Defendant Quality Loan Services Corp., filed a motion to dismiss on September 18,
2014. Dkt. 14.
Plaintiffs did not oppose defendants’ motions, and did not attend the Court’s
October 6, 2014 hearing. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, failure to file an opposition may
be deemed consent to the granting of a motion. Accordingly, defendants’ motions to
dismiss are hereby GRANTED without prejudice.
Moreover, the Court notes that plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
Although plaintiffs’ complaint contains many allegations, plaintiffs do not support these
allegations with specific facts regarding defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct. Rule
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires sufficient factual allegations to put
the defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d
795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). Further, Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requires plaintiffs to plead their fraud claims with even greater particularity. Specifically,
Rule 9(b) requires plaintiffs to “identify the ‘who, what, when, where and how of the
misconduct charged,’ as well as ‘what is false or misleading about [the purportedly
fraudulent conduct], and why it is false.” Cafasso, ex rel. United States v. Gen.
Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ebeid ex rel.
United States v. Lungwitz, 616 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2010)). If plaintiffs file an
amended complaint, they are advised to comply with Rules 8(a) and 9(b).
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS without prejudice
defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs shall have until
Thursday, November 6, 2014 to file an amended complaint. If plaintiffs do not file an
amended complaint by this date, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

03

CMJ

Page 2 of 2