Aguilera, et al. v. Rosenberg, et al.

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/13/16 ORDERING that Defendant Unifunds motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is granted; Plaintiffs' original complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend; Within 28 days of this order, plain tiffs shall file either (i) a first amended complaint in compliance with this order or (ii) a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice; Failure to file either a compliant first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by the required deadline may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MICHELLE AGUILERA & ELI AGUILERA, Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2313-JAM-KJN PS DAVID ROSENBERG & UNIFUND CCR, LLC, 16 Defendants. 17 Presently pending before the court is defendant Unifund CCR, LLC’s motion to dismiss 18 19 plaintiffs Michelle Aguilera and Eli Aguilera’s1 original complaint. (ECF No. 8.)2 Plaintiffs have 20 opposed the motion, and defendant Unifund filed a reply brief. (ECF Nos. 16, 18.) For the 21 reasons discussed below, the court GRANTS the motion, but with leave to amend.3 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Based on their use of colons and other representative terminology throughout the complaint, plaintiffs appear to be adherents of the Sovereign Citizens movement and refer to themselves as “michelle: [House of Aguilera]” and “eli: [House of Aguilera].” (See ECF No. 1.) The court respectfully declines to use such fictional names, and refers to plaintiffs Michelle Aguilera and Eli Aguilera as “plaintiffs” throughout this order. 2 3 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On December 29, 2015, the motion was submitted without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 17.) 1 1 A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 2 challenges the sufficiency of the pleadings set forth in the complaint. Vega v. JPMorgan Chase 3 Bank, N.A., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1109 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Under the “notice pleading” standard 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff’s complaint must provide, in part, a “short and 5 plain statement” of plaintiff’s claims showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see 6 also Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). “To survive a motion to dismiss, 7 a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that 8 is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 10 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 11 for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 12 In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts all of the 13 well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most 14 favorable to the plaintiff. Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir. 2007). The court 15 is “not, however, required to accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by 16 documents referred to in the complaint, and [the court does] not necessarily assume the truth of 17 legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Paulsen, 559 18 F.3d at 1071. The court must construe a pro se pleading liberally to determine if it states a claim 19 and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in her complaint and give plaintiff an 20 opportunity to cure them if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect. See 21 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 22 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that courts continue to construe pro se filings 23 liberally even when evaluating them under the standard announced in Iqbal). 24 In this case, plaintiffs’ complaint is rambling, confusing, and largely incomprehensible. 25 As best the court can tell, plaintiffs allege that defendants have improperly garnished a portion of 26 plaintiff Michelle Aguilera’s wages, which purportedly amounts to various constitutional 27 violations and other legal wrongs, but there are no intelligible factual allegations pled in support 28 of plaintiffs’ vague and conclusory claims. Indeed, a large portion of the complaint consists of a 2 1 collection of definitions of various legal terms, some with doubtful relevance to the case. Beyond 2 conclusory assertions, plaintiffs have not alleged facts that allow the court to draw the reasonable 3 inference that the defendants are liable for any misconduct. Moreover, plaintiffs have not 4 identified precisely what legal claims they are asserting. Because plaintiffs’ original complaint fails to comply with the above-mentioned Federal 5 6 Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law, it is subject to dismissal. Defendant Unifund 7 requests dismissal with prejudice, arguing that the nature of plaintiffs’ complaint and other filings 8 suggests that it is unlikely that plaintiffs could cure the original complaint and state cognizable 9 claims. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiffs’ pro se status, the court finds it appropriate to provide 10 plaintiffs, who have now received notice of the complaint’s deficiencies, an opportunity to 11 amend. If plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint, it shall be captioned “First Amended 12 13 Complaint” and shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law 14 outlined above. 15 Plaintiffs are informed that the court cannot refer to a prior complaint or filing in order to 16 make any first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint 17 be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading or filing. As a general rule, an 18 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, and once the amended complaint is filed, 19 the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. 20 Importantly, nothing in this order requires plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. If 21 plaintiffs determine that they are unable to amend their complaint in compliance with the court’s 22 order or no longer wish to pursue the action in this court, plaintiffs may alternatively file a notice 23 of voluntary dismissal of their claims without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 25 If plaintiffs elect to proceed with this action in federal court, they are strongly encouraged 26 to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s Local Rules.4 27 28 4 A copy of the court’s Local Rules can be obtained from the Clerk of Court or on the court’s website. 3 1 Although the court is sympathetic to the difficulties faced by pro se litigants in litigating their 2 cases in federal court, and liberally construes their pleadings and filings, pro se litigants are 3 expected to comply with all deadlines, procedural rules, and court orders. 4 Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Defendant Unifund’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is granted. 6 2. Plaintiffs’ original complaint is dismissed, but with leave to amend. 7 3. Within 28 days of this order, plaintiffs shall file either (i) a first amended 8 complaint in compliance with this order or (ii) a notice of voluntary dismissal of 9 the action without prejudice. 10 4. Failure to file either a compliant first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary 11 dismissal by the required deadline may result in dismissal of the action with 12 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: January 13, 2016 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?