Buzon et al v. World Savings Bank, FSB et al

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 8 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ALEXANDER L. BUZON, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-11-3141 EMC WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, et al., 12 Defendants. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 8) 13 14 15 Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger with WellsFargo Bank Southwest, 16 N.A., formerly known as Wachovia Mortgage, FSB and World Savings Bank, FSB (sued herein as 17 “World Savings Bank, FSB . . . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.”), and Golden West Savings Association 18 Service Co., filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on August 24, 2011. Docket No. 8. 19 Defendants argued that the complaint was unintelligible and failed to state a claim against any 20 defendant. Plaintiffs untimely filed on October 19, 2011 a “Letter” (Docket No. 12) which the Court 21 construes as an opposition brief. However, the Court is unable to determine what arguments, if any, 22 Plaintiffs have made in their letter as the letter is unintelligible. 23 The Court, having considered the parties' submissions and Defendants’ request for judicial 24 notice, determines that the matters are appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and 25 VACATES the hearing set for October 28, 2011. The Court hereby enters the following order: 26 (1) Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Hite v. 27 Wachovia Mortgage, No. 2:09-cv-02884-GEB-GGH, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57732, *6-9 (E.D. Cal. 28 June 10, 2010) (taking judicial notice of same documents). 1 (2) Plaintiffs’ complaint is unintelligible and fails to articulate a cognizable claim against 2 any defendant. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain 3 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”) 4 (internal quotations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (describing the general rules for stating a claim for 5 relief). This complaint falls well short of this benchmark, as other than the deed of trust attached to 6 the complaint, Plaintiffs fail to inform the Court the nature of the dispute and any claims they may 7 have against Defendants. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and 8 dismisses the complaint as to all Defendants with leave to amend. Plaintiffs are given leave to file 9 an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this order. This disposes of Docket No. 8. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: October 21, 2011 15 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?