Bohl v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. et al

Filing 50

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 06/14/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DENNIS R BOHL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 3:18-cv-00896-WHO
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Unrepresented plaintiff Dennis Bohl brought this action against Real Time Resolutions,

14

Inc. (“RTR”) and Capital One, N.A. (“Capital One”) based on the defendants’ alleged attempt to

15

collect a debt that he claims was discharged in a separate bankruptcy proceeding. The debt stems

16

from a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) secured by real property owned and occupied by

17

Bohl. In ruling on defendants’ motions to dismiss Bohl’s complaint, I noted that “[e]ven though

18

Bohl discharged the debt in bankruptcy, RTR may still ‘collect’ on the debt through foreclosure.”

19

Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. for Default J. and Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend at 4

20

(“Prior Order”)(Dkt. No. 28)(citing Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 83–84 (1991)). I

21

determined that he “lack[ed] a basis for his claims,” but nonetheless granted him leave to amend

22

all but two of the claims. Id.; see also id. at 8 (“While it is unclear whether he can state any

23

plausible claims against these defendants, leave is freely given to amend so I will DISMISS the

24

remaining claims WITH LEAVE TO AMEND within 30 days.”).

25

When Bohl filed an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 30), he failed to sign it and RTR moved

26

to strike (Dkt. No. 31). Defendants also filed motions to dismiss his amended complaint,

27

explaining that his claims are still “premised on his erroneous understanding that his Chapter 7

28

bankruptcy discharge means that Defendants may not enforce the deed of trust securing his home

1

equity line of credit[.]” Capital One’s Mot. to Dismiss at 1 (Dkt. No. 38); see also RTR’s Mot. to

2

Dismiss at 1 (“As stated repeatedly in case law and this Court’s prior Order, a discharge does not

3

eliminate or wipe out the debt, it simply makes it uncollectable through an in personam court

4

action.”). I thereafter ordered Bohl to file a signed amended complaint and reminded him of the

5

deadline for him to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. Order Striking Unsigned Complaint

6

and Ordering Plaintiff to File a Signed Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 43).

7

On June 5, 2018, Bohl filed another unsigned complaint. Dkt. No. 44. On June 8, 2018, I

8

issued an order to show cause directing Bohl to appear at a case management conference on June

9

13, 2018, to “show cause for his failure to correct the defect in the pleading, sign the pleading, and
demonstrate his intent to prosecute this case (including opposing the pending motions to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

dismiss)[.]” Dkt. No. 48. He did not appear.

12

Because he has failed to file a signed complaint, oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss,

13

and appear at the Case Management Conference, and because his amended complaint is defective

14

for the reasons I outlined in the Prior Order, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2018

18
19
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2