Ana Maria Bernal v. Litton Loan Servicing et al

Filing 9

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz: Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, with leave to amend. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she must do so on or before 8/17/2011, and she should take note of the deficiencies in her current complaint pointed out by Defendants motion. Counsel for Plaintiff, Paul Eric St. Amant, Esq., is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing, by not later than 8/3/2011, why he should not be sanctioned $250 for his failure to oppose the Motion or to file a notice of opposition in violation of Local Rule 7-9. No hearing is necessary. FRCP 78; L.R. 7-15. (jp) Modified on 7/20/2011 (jp).

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

CV 11-0918 AHM (DTBx)

Title

ANA MARIA BERNAL v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

July 20, 2011

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
S. Eagle

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Proceedings:

Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

This case is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Litton
Loan Servicing LP and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. On April 28, 2011, plaintiff Ana Maria
Bernal (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in San Bernardino County Superior Court against
defendants Litton Loan Servicing, HSBC Bank USA, Renaissance Escrow, Inc., People’s
Choice Home Loan, Inc., and New Century Title Company. The complaint alleged 17
causes of action in connection with Plaintiff’s mortgage loan and the subsequent
foreclosure on her home. On June 9, 2011, Defendants removed the action to federal
court.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on several grounds, including that
Plaintiff fails to state a claim, certain claims are time barred, and Plaintiff has failed to
make a valid tender of the amount due under her loan. Plaintiff, who is represented by
counsel, failed timely to oppose the motion to dismiss. “The failure to file any required
paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting
or denial of the motion.” Local Rule 7-12. In addition, the motion to dismiss appears
meritorious on its face.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, with leave to amend. If
Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she must do so on or before August 17,
2011, and she should take note of the deficiencies in her current complaint pointed out by
Defendants’ motion.
///
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 11-0918 AHM (DTBx)

Date

Title

July 20, 2011

ANA MARIA BERNAL v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING, et al.

///
Counsel for Plaintiff, Paul Eric St. Amant, Esq., is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE
in writing, by not later than August 3, 2011, why he should not be sanctioned $250 for
his failure to oppose the Motion or to file a notice of opposition in violation of Local
Rule 7-9.
No hearing is necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

:
Initials of
Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

se

Page 2 of 2