Champan R. Washington v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Judge John F. Walter: Plaintiff has failed to file a First Amended Complaint before the deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
ED CV 17-54-JFW (DTBx)
Champan R. Washington -v- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.
Date: May 4, 2017
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
On January 12, 2017, Plaintiff Champan R. Washington (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against
Defendant Well Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (“Wells
Fargo”) in this Court, alleging the following claims for relief: (1) declaratory relief; (2) rescission of
mortgage pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq.; (3) cancellation of instruments; (4) accounting; (5)
breach of contract; and (6) violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605. On February 24, 2017, Wells Fargo filed
a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff failed to file a timely
Opposition. Accordingly, on March 10, 2017, the Court deemed Plaintiff’s failure to file an
Opposition (or to otherwise comply with Local Rule 7-9) as consent to the granting of Wells Fargo’s
Motion to Dismiss, and granted Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court entered a Judgment
of Dismissal on March 17, 2017.
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Specifically, Plaintiff argued that relief was justified on the
grounds that the Court granted Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss before the deadline for Plaintiff to
file an amended complaint as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).
Despite the fact that Plaintiff failed to file a Notice of Non-Opposition or notify the Court that she
intended to file an amended complaint in accordance with the Local Rules and the Court's
Standing Order, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal. However,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to file First Amended Complaint on or before May 1, 2017, and expressly
warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to file a First Amended Complaint on or before May 1, 2017 will result
in the dismissal of this action with prejudice.” Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment
of Dismissal [Docket No. 29] at 3. Plaintiff has failed to file a First Amended Complaint before the
deadline. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1 of 1
Initials of Deputy Clerk sr
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?