Compos et al v. JPMorgan Chase National Association Bank et al

Filing 21

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/24/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 JOSE M. COMPOS and MARTHA E. COMPOS; DAVID-WYNN MILLER; SYNTAX, No. C 11-00480 CW 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 7 v. 8 9 JPMORGAN CHASE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION BANK; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Defendants. 11 / 12 13 On March 10, 2011, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. moved 14 to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Jose M. Campos, Martha 15 E. Campos, David-Wynn Miller, and Syntax.1 16 hearing on the motion was set for May 5, 2011. 17 Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was due by April 18 14, 2011, but Plaintiffs failed to oppose by that deadline. 19 On April 27, 2011, the Court issued an order requiring Docket No. 9. A Pursuant to Local 20 Plaintiffs to file their opposition by May 4, 2011. 21 In that order the Court also noted that Plaintiff’s complaint was 22 unintelligible, and stated that Plaintiffs were required to file an 23 intelligible opposition or their action would be dismissed for 24 failure to prosecute. Docket No. 15. 25 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that while Plaintiffs Jose M. Campos and Martha E. Campos are listed with the surname Compos, the deed of trust attached to their complaint indicates that their surname is Campos. Compl. at 22. Accordingly, the Court refers to Plaintiffs by the surname Campos. 1 At the same time, Plaintiffs submitted a second unintelligible 2 filing to the Court. 3 issued an order noting that the submission could be Plaintiffs’ 4 opposition, but that it was unintelligible. 5 Court reiterated that Plaintiffs were required to file an 6 intelligible opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss by May 4, 7 2011, or face dismissal of their action for failure to prosecute. 8 9 Docket No. 16. On April 29, 2011, the Court Docket No. 17. The Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s order to submit an intelligible opposition. Therefore, Defendant JPMorgan United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Chase’s motion to dismiss is granted, Docket No. 9, and Plaintiffs’ 11 action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 12 Docket No. 9. 13 Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS) 14 did not join Defendant JPMorgan Chase’s motion to dismiss and has 15 not appeared in this case. 16 JPMorgan Chase’s motion, it is similarly situated and entitled to 17 dismissal of the complaint against it. 18 Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) ("A District Court 19 may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as to defendants 20 who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a 21 position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims 22 against such defendants are integrally related."). 23 unintelligible complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure Rule 8, which requires a “short and plain statement of 25 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “a 26 demand for the relief sought.” 27 jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction are indiscernible from 28 Although MERS is not a party to Silverton v. Dep't of Plaintiffs’ Allegations of federal question 2 1 Plaintiffs’ complaint. 2 Plaintiffs David-Wynn Miller and Syntax in the dispute and, thus, 3 fails to allege their standing to sue. 4 have attempted to plead a claim for fraud, the allegations have not 5 met the requirements of particularity under Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 9(b). 7 to Plaintiffs’ unintelligible complaint. 8 has asserted are equally available to MERS. 9 The complaint is silent as to the role of In event that Plaintiffs MERS is not a party to the Deed of Trust attached These arguments JPMorgan In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to prosecute their action in United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 response to JPMorgan Chase’s motion to dismiss, and have submitted 11 an indecipherable complaint that plainly violates Rules 8 and 9, in 12 addition to insufficiently alleging grounds for this Court’s 13 subject matter jurisdiction. 14 dismissed without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ complaint is 16 17 Dated: 5/24/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 JOSE M. COMPOS et al, Case Number: CV11-00480 CW 4 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 v. 6 7 8 JPMORGAN CHASE ASSOCIATION BANK et al, Defendant. NATIONAL / 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on May 24, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 David-Wynn Miller 5166 North 63 Milwaukee, WI 53218 Jose M Compos 33755 15th Street Union City, CA 94587 Martha E. Compos 33755 15th Street Union City, CA 94587 Dated: May 24, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 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?