Brambila et al v. Reo Bay Area, LP et al

Filing 19

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

10
11
12
13

PEDRO A. BRAMBILA, and
DOMINGA BRAMBILA,

No. C 11-03202 SI
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,
v.
REO BAY AREA, LP; ROBIN
TRIPALDI; KIMBALL, TIREY,
& ST. JOHN LLP; DOES 1
THROUGH 10,
Defendants.

14

/

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On September 9, 2011, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, with
limited leave to amend. Following that order, the plaintiffs filed an amended opposition to defendants’
motion to dismiss. The Court has received and reviewed that filing. The arguments presented in the
amended opposition do not address the analysis behind the dismissal -- that is, the Court’s lack of
subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. In sum, the amended opposition does not change
anything.
The action is still dismissed, and the plaintiffs are still given leave to amend the complaint only
to the extent that they may attempt to allege claims against defendants which are “debt collectors”
within the meaning of the FDCPA in order to establish the Court’s jurisdiction. The plaintiffs are given
until September 30, 2011 to file the amended complaint on this limited basis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 12, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge