Aurora Isidora Diaz Perez v. Glenn Mondo et al

Filing 13

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): by Judge David O. Carter: granting 6 Motion to Dismiss Case. Plaintiff's claims against Commissioner Mondo are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (twdb)

-SS Aurora Isidora Diaz Perez v. Glenn Mondo et al

Doc. 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SACV 10-1454 DOC (SSx) Date: December 14, 2010

Title: AURORA ISODORE DIAZ PEREZ v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOC. et. al. PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE Kathy Peterson Courtroom Clerk Not Present Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): GRANTING DEFENDANT GLENN MONDO'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Glenn Mondo in the abovecaptioned case ("Motion") (Docket 6). The Court hereby GRANTS the Motion. I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Aurora Isodore Diaz Perez ("Plaintiff") filed her purported Complaint on September 27, 2010. The purported Complaint is illegible and the Court is at a loss to discern either the factual or legal bases for Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff's purported Complaint, however, does incorporate two minute orders issued by the Honorable Glenn Mondo, Commissioner of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange ("Commissioner Mondo"). As a result, the Court infers an attempt to assert liability against Commissioner Mondo related to the issuance of these orders. Commissioner Mondo filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on October 21, 2010 and set a hearing on this matter for December 6, 2010. Under the Local Rules, Plaintiff was to file any opposition to this Motion by November 22, 2010. Plaintiff did not file an opposition by that date. On November 30, 2010, the Court issued a minute order taking Commissioner Mondo's Motion under submission and vacating the December 6, 2010 hearing date ("Under Submission Order") (Docket 8). Although the Under Submission Order was sent to the address Plaintiff listed with the Court Clerk's MINUTES FORM 11 DOC CIVIL - GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk kp Page 1 of 3

Dockets.Justia.com

office, the minute order was returned to sender. Apparently unaware that the matter had been taking under submission, Plaintiff appeared in Court on December 6, 2010. The Court informed Plaintiff that the Motion had been taken under submission and noted that Plaintiff had not filed an opposition within the deadlines set by the Local Rules. The Court extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition until December 10, 2010 ­ a date selected by Plaintiff. The Court received Plaintiff's Opposition on December 9, 2010. Unfortunately, Plaintiff's Opposition is as illegible as her purported Complaint. II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed when a plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dismissal for failure to state a claim does not require the appearance, beyond a doubt, that the plaintiff can prove "no set of facts" in support of its claim that would entitle it to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1968 (2007) (abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)). In order for a complaint to survive a 12(b)(6) motion, it must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). A claim for relief is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads enough facts, taken as true, to allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged conduct. Id. at 1949. If the facts only allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is possible liable, then the complaint must be dismissed. Id. Mere legal conclusions are not to be accepted as true and do not establish a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will be a context-specific task requiring the court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. In evaluating a 12(b)(6) motion, review is "limited to the contents of the complaint." Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1994). However, exhibits attached to the complaint, as well as matters of public record, may be considered in determining whether dismissal was proper without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. See Parks School of Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995); Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a court may consider documents "on which the complaint `necessarily relies' if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion." Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). "The Court may treat such a document as `part of the complaint, and thus may assume that its contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Id.

MINUTES FORM 11 DOC CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk kp Page 2 of 3

Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate only when the Court is satisfied that the deficiencies in the complaint could not possibly be cured by amendment. Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 1996)); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). III. DISCUSSION

As stated above, both Plaintiff's purported Complaint and her Opposition are entirely incomprehensible. For reference, attached as Exhibit A to this Order is a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court cannot make out the nature of any of Plaintiff's specific factual allegations or legal claims. This deficiency alone mandates dismissal of Plaintiff's case against Commissioner Mondo. In addition, Commissioner Mondo, a judicial officer, is entitled to judicial immunity from civil suits arising out of the exercise of his judicial function. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). See also Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 346 (1872). This reality not only mandates dismissal of Plaintiff's case against Commissioner Mondo, but a dismissal with prejudice: no amendments to Plaintiff's complaint can cure this fatal deficiency. VI. DISPOSITION

In light of the above, Commissioner Mondo's Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Commissioner Mondo are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.

MINUTES FORM 11 DOC CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk kp Page 3 of 3

EXHIBIT A TO MINUTE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 14, 2010

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:2

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:4

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:5

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:6

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:7

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:8

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:9

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:10

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:11

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:12

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:13

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:14

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:15

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:16

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:17

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:18

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:19

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:20

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:21

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:22

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:23

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:24

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:25

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:26

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:27

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:28

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:29

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:30

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:31

Case 8:10-cv-01454-DOC -SS Document 1-1

Filed 09/27/10 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:32