Tidwell v. JPMorgan Chase & Company et al

Filing 48

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND CONTINUANCE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/1/2011. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 11-01145 CRB

EDWARD C. TIDWELL,

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING AND CONTINUANCE

Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

Earlier today, the Court denied pre se Plaintiff Edward Tidwell’s request for a

18

continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (dkt. 17), from June 3, 2011 to

19

September 16, 2011. See dkt. 47. While the Court will not move the hearing for several

20

months to allow for discovery, it does hereby move the hearing a couple of weeks to allow

21

for additional briefing.

22

The Court notes that, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s Opposition was due on

23

May 13, 2011, and yet no formal Opposition was filed. When the Court’s deputy brought

24

this to Plaintiff’s attention, Plaintiff asserted that letters sent to the Court constituted his

25

Opposition. See, e.g., dkt. 30. Subsequently, Defendants filed, in lieu of a true Reply

26

Memorandum, a “Reply Memorandum re Non-Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,” stating

27

simply that “Defendants have not received any Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.”

28

See dkt. 38. And after that, on May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a “Further Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,” which addresses in some length Defendants’ Motion.

1

See dkt. 40.

2

The Court would like to clarify some of the points in Plaintiff’s Further Opposition.

3

First, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ “Motion and supporting documents were

4

prematurely filed before Defendants were legally served the Summons, Complaint and

5

related documents.” Id. at 2.1 Defendants are ORDERED to respond to this assertion, in five

6

pages or less, by noon on June 10, 2011.
Second, Plaintiff indicates an intent to abandon his federal claims, but that intent is

7
8

not entirely clear. Under a heading that states “Plaintiff Properly Pled a Cause of Action for

9

Violation of RICO ACT,” Plaintiff writes: “Plaintiff does not object to the dismissal of his

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

claim for Violation of RICO Act.” Id. at 19. It is therefore unclear whether Plaintiff intends

11

to abandon his RICO claim. Plaintiff next asserts unambiguously that he “does not object to

12

the dismissal of his claim for Violation of Home Ownership Equity Protection Act.” Id. But

13

then, under a heading that states “Plaintiff does not object to Dismissal of Allegations

14

relating to Violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,” Plaintiff writes: “ Plaintiff

15

does not object to the dismissal of his claim for Violation of Home Ownership Equity

16

Protection Act.” Id. at 20. It is therefore unclear whether Plaintiff intends to abandon his

17

RESPA claim. Similarly, under a heading that states “Plaintiff does not object to Dismissal

18

of Allegations relating to Violation of Federal Truth-In-Lending Act,” Plaintiff writes:

19

“Plaintiff does not object to the dismissal of his claim for Violation of Home Ownership

20

Equity Protection Act.” Id. It is therefore unclear whether Plaintiff intends to abandon his

21

TILA claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to specify, in five pages or less, by noon

22

on June 10, 2011, whether he intends to abandon (1) his RICO claim, (2) his RESPA claim,

23

and (3) his TILA claim, in addition to his HOEPA claim.
The hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, originally calendared for June 3,

24
25

//

26

//

27
28

1

Plaintiff also made this argument in his April 14, 2011 “opposition correspondence” to the
Court. See dkt. 30.
2

1
2

2011, is hereby RE-SET for Thursday, June 16, 2011, at 10:00 am.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: June 1, 2011

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2011\1145\order re continuance.wpd

3