Baldain et al v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/5/2009 ORDERING 13 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / Plaintiffs in this suit bring numerous claims against various private financial businesses and two individuals involved with plaintiffs' home mortgage. Two of these defendants, American Home AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP., OLYMPIC MORTGAGE & INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC., PHILLIP RUBLE and TIMOTHY ALAN SMITH and DOES 1-20, inclusive, ORDER WALTER BALDAIN, JR., MICHAEL BALDAIN, NO. CIV. S-09-0931 LKK/GGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Mortgage Servicing, Inc. ("AHMS") and Sand Canyon Corporation (f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation) ("Option One"), moved to dismiss all eleven claims against them. Pursuant to local rule 78230(c), plaintiffs' opposition or statement of non-opposition to 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 this motion was due by August 3, 2009. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition or non-opposition. Instead, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint abandons plaintiffs' claims under RICO and Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5, adds a claim for negligence, and adds some allegations to the repeated nine claims. It appears that many of the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss the initial complaint may also apply to the amended complaint. Nonetheless, the court declines to address this issue without briefing directly on point from either party. Accordingly, the pending motion to dismiss, Doc. No. 13, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 5, 2009. 2

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?