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)

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