Kelly Randle et al v. LNV Corporation et al

Filing 130

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 78 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED. Defendants Ex Parte Application to Expunge Lis Pendens recorded against real property located at 1579 Cedar S pring Drive, Hemet, California 92545 is GRANTED 111 . Defendants request for fees and costs is DENIED. All other pending motions and applications are DENIED 98 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 117 , 122 , 125 , 131 . (lc). Modified on 6/15/2015 (lc).(Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) Modified on 6/15/2015 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KELLY RANDLE; FRED MITCHELL,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
LNV CORPORATION; ALL PERSONS
UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL
OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE,
ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN
THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S TITLE, OR ANY
CLOUD ON PLAINTIFF',

18
Defendants.
19
20

___________________________

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

Case No. ED CV 14-02280 DDP (SPx)
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

21
This is not the first suit Plaintiffs have filed to challenge
22
the foreclosure on property located at 1579 Cedarspring Drive in
23
Hemet, California or Defendant’s subsequent efforts to take
24
possession of the property.

One such effort in this court, Kelly

25
L. Randle v. Beal Bank USA, No. ED CV-13-00763 DDP, was dismissed
26
when Plaintiffs failed to oppose a Motion to Dismiss.1
27
28
1

Other, similar suits named the Kelly Lynn Randle Family
Trust as Plaintiff. (RJN Exs. K, L.)

1

(Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Exs. N, O).

2

Plaintiffs also removed unlawful detainer cases to this court eight

3

times.

4

Order”).

Each time, this court remanded to state court.

5

2-3, 5.)

Judgment was ultimately entered in Defendant’s favor in

6

state court, and Defendant was awarded possession of the property.

7

(RJN Ex. H).

8
9

See No. EDCV 14-0631 JGB, Dkt. 19 (“Vexatious Litigant
(Id. at

The instant suit was filed in state court prior to resolution
of the unlawful detainer action.

Defendant LNV Corporation later

10

removed to this court.

11

Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the instant

12

case.

13

Defendant is correct that this court has declared Plaintiffs to be

14

vexatious litigants, and has entered a Pre-Filing Order against

15

them.

16

contention that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is subject to

17

the Pre-Filing Order’s screening provisions is misplaced.

18

Filing Order requires Plaintiffs to obtain leave of the court prior

19

to filing any complaint or notice of removal related to the

20

foreclosure or unlawful detainer efforts.

21

however, Plaintiffs did not file a Complaint or Notice of Removal

22

in this court.

23

Complaint in state court.

24

choice to remove to this court.2

(Dkt. 78).

Presently before the court is Defendant LNV

As an initial matter, the court notes that

(Vexatious Litigant Order at 10.)

Nevertheless, Defendant’s

(Id. at 10.)

The Pre-

Here,

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and First Amended
It was Defendant’s, not Plaintiffs’,

25
26
27
28

2

There is no indication in the documents presented whether
the state court has declared Plaintiffs to be vexatious litigants.
2

1

In any event, Defendant now moves for judgment on the

2

pleadings under Rule 12(c).

Defendant contends that, among other

3

arguments, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred as res judicata or by

4

collateral estoppel.

5

to be contained within a document titled “Ex Parte Application to

6

Strike Defendants’ Answer to the FAC and to Deny Defendants’ Motion

7

for Judgment on the Pleadings.”

8

however, is essentially non-responsive to Defendant’s motion.

9

only argument presented in Plaintiffs’ opposition is that

Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion appears

(Dkt. 98.)

That document,
The

10

Defendant’s Answer should be stricken and the instant motion denied

11

because Defendant claimed at one point that it had not been served

12

with a Summons and Complaint or First Amended Complaint.

13

at 1-2.)

14

as a matter of law from filing” a motion or answer.

15

(Dkt. 98

Plaintiffs argue, therefore, that Defendant “is incapable
(Id. at 1-2.)

Plaintiffs do not cite, nor is the court aware of, any

16

authority for Plaintiffs’ argument.

17

even address the arguments raised in Defendant’s motion, the court

18

GRANTS the motion.

19

96 F.Supp.2d 1062, 1065 (C.D. Cal. 2000).

20

Given Plaintiffs’ failure to

See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9; Wyatt v. Liljenquist,

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is

21

DISMISSED.

22

recorded against real property located at 1579 Cedarspring Drive,

23

Hemet, California 92545 is GRANTED.

24

request for fees and costs is DENIED.

25

and applications are DENIED.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: June 15, 2015

Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Expunge Lis Pendens

(Dkt. 111).

Defendant’s

All other pending motions

DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

28
3