Ohlendorf v. American Brokers Conduit et al

Filing 59

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/17/2012 GRANTING 56 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; TERMINATING Attorneys Holly S. Burgess, Agnieszka Regina Bielecka; GRANTING 52 Motion to Dismiss; TERMINATING defendants Option One Mortgage Corporation and Mortgage Electronic Registration Sytems, Inc.; VACATING Motion Hearing as to 52 Motion to Dismiss, 56 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney set for 4/23/2012 at 10:00 AM. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 CRAIG OHLENDORF,
NO. CIV. S-11-293 LKK/EFB
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT,
14 et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17

O R D E R

On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff Craig E. Ohlendorf filed a

18 request with the court to “approve the substitution of himself in
19 pro per as attorney of record in place and stead of Holly S.
20 Burgess.”

Pl’s Req., ECF No. 50.

In response, on March 14, 2012,

21 this court issued an order requiring Plaintiff’s counsel of record
22 to file a notice of withdrawal in accordance with Local Rule
23 182(d).1

Order, ECF No. 54.

24
1

25
26

Local Rule 182(d) provides:
[A]n attorney who has appeared may not withdraw
leaving the client in propria persona without leave
1

1

On March 26, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Holly S.

2 Burgess, properly filed a motion to withdraw as counsel leaving
3 plaintiff in propria persona.

See Pl’s Mot., ECF No. 56.

Because

4 Plaintiff clearly does not contest the withdrawal of his counsel,
5 leaving him in propria persona, Counsel’s motion to withdraw is
6 GRANTED.
7

As a separate matter, on March 13, 2012, Defendant Sand Canyon

8 Corporation, formerly known as Option One Mortgage Corporation
9 (“Option One”), filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
10 See Def’s Mot., ECF No. 52.

On March 21, 2012, Defendant Mortgage

11 Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) filed a notice of
12 joinder in Defendant Option One’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
13 complaint. See Joinder, ECF No. 55. Defendants Option One and MERS
14 here make substantially similar arguments to those previously
15 raised

by

Defendants

American

Home

Mortgage

Servicing,

Inc.

16 (“AHMSI”), Power Default Services, Inc. (“PDSI”), Deutsche Bank
17 National Trust Company (“Deutsche”), see ECF No. 12; LSI Title
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

of court upon noticed motion and notice to the
client and all other parties who have appeared.
The attorney shall provide an affidavit stating the
current or last known address of addresses of the
client and the efforts made to notify the client of
the motion to withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is
governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of
the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall
conform to the requirements of those Rules. The
authority and duty of the attorney of record shall
continue until relieved by order of the Court
issued hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be granted
subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court
deems fit.
L.R. 182(d).
2

1 Company (“LSI”), see ECF No. 15; and T.D. Service Company (“T.D.”),
2 see ECF No. 37, in their motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint,
3 which have already been addressed by this court.2
4

By order issued on March 5, 2012, this court granted the

5 motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint filed by Defendants AHMSI,
6 PDSI, Deutsche, LSI, and T.D.

See Order, ECF No. 49.

The court

7 dismissed each of Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, except for
8 Plaintiff’s TILA and HOEPA rescission claims, which were dismissed
9 with prejudice.

Id.

Because Defendants Option One and MERS here

10 make substantially similar arguments to those which the court
11 already addressed in its March 5, 2012 order, for the reasons
12 stated therein, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Each of

13 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Option One and MERS are
14 dismissed without prejudice for the reasons stated in the court’s
15 prior order, except for Plaintiff’s TILA and HOEPA rescission
16 claims asserted against Defendants Option One and MERS, which are
17 dismissed with prejudice.
18

The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw as counsel, ECF

19 No. 56, and Defendants Option One and MER’s motion to dismiss, ECF
20 No. 52, which is currently set for April 23, 2012 at 10:00 A.M, is
21 VACATED.
22 ////
23
24
25
26

2

Summons issued as to Defendants MERS and Option One had been
returned executed, see ECF Nos. 33, 34, but MERS and Option One did
not file answers to Plaintiff’s complaint, nor did they join in the
motions to dismiss previously filed by Defendants AHMSI, PDSI,
Deutsche, LSI, and T.D.
3

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED:

April 17, 2012.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4