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

Filing 47

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/15/10 ORDERING that the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the pending motions 42 as moot. The January 25, 2010 deadline for filing an amended complaint remains unchanged. (Becknal, R)

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 bring claims / relating to a home loan and 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

foreclosure on the home.

On August 13, 2009, two defendants--

American Home Mortgage Servicing and Option One Mortgage Corp.-moved to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint and for a more definite statement. (Doc. No. 23.) While these motions were under submission, on December 15, 2009, three additional defendants-Olympia Mortgage & Investment Co., Inc., Philip Lynn Ruble and 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

Timothy Alan Smith--separately moved for dismissal and for a more definite statement. (Doc. No. 42.) The latter defendants' motions were noticed for hearing on January 25, 2010. On January 5, 2010, the court issued an order granting in part the earlier motion to dismiss and denying the accompanying motion for a more definite statement. This order granted plaintiffs 20 The order only discussed the the docket text erroneously

days to file an amended complaint. first defendants' motions, but

indicated that the order disposed of the second defendants' motions as well. Plaintiffs' opposition to the second defendants' motions

was due on January 11, 2010. While the pending motions raise some new issues, they largely reiterate arguments considered by the court's January 5th order. In light of this fact, the fact that the court has already granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint, and the potential for confusion created by the erroneous docket text, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the pending motions (Doc. No. 42) as moot. The January 25, 2010 deadline for filing an amended

complaint remains unchanged. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 15, 2010.

2