Marlon T Segovia v. Wilmington Finance A Division of AIG Federal Savings Bank et al

Filing 80

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson that Defendants MOTION to Dismiss 46 , 48 are hereby GRANTED with prejudice. There is no evidence that any error or defect in the pleading could be fixed, therefore no leave to amend is granted. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp) M

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARLON T. SEGOVIA, as an
individual,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15

WILMINGTON FINANCE A
DIVISION OF AIG FEDERAL
SAVINGS BANK et al.,

16
Defendants.
17
___________________________

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

Case No. CV 15-03150 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
[Dkt. Nos. 46, 48, 56, 59, 68]

18
19

Presently before the Court are Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

20

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

21

parties’ submissions, the Court adopts the following order.

22

I.

23

Having considered the

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff in pro per has filed this suit against about sixteen

24

different defendants, alleging thirteen causes of action.

25

none of the causes of action in the forty page complaint set forth

26

a specific allegation against any particular defendant, instead

27

referring to “defendants” or “defendant” writ large.

28

assuming that all Defendants are properly included in this suit,

However,

But even

1

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as a matter of law.

2

Plaintiff’s case arises out of problems Plaintiff has with

3

Defendants’ alleged conduct relating to the securitization of

4

Plaintiff’s home loan.

5

Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge any securitization of his

6

mortgage loan because he was not a party or beneficiary to a

7

pooling and servicing agreement.

8

Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal. App. 4th 497, 515 (2013).

9

Plaintiff’s causes of action based on that theory all fail.

10

(See FAC ¶¶ 21, 22, p.15-32.)

However,

See, e.g., Jenkins v. J.P. Morgan
Therefore,

Plaintiff’s other causes of action are deemed abandoned

11

because Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss do

12

not address Defendants’ arguments.

13

Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 2006).

14

II.

15

See Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t Human

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED with

16

prejudice.

17

pleading could be fixed, therefore no leave to amend is granted.

There is no evidence that any error or defect in the

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: October 14, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2