Mack et al v. PNC Mortgage et al
Filing
14
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF SOBAYO'S 9 MOTION TO PAY FILING FEE IN INSTALLMENTS AND DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/1/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
DWAYNE WILLIAM MACK, doing
business as Kingsway Capital
Partners; NATHANIEL BASOLA
SOBAYO, doing business as
Kingsway Capital Partners,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Plaintiffs,
v.
PNC BANK; NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE,
a division of National City Bank;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BLUE
MOUNTAIN HOMES, LLC; WILL LUJAN,
as agent for a purported owner;
CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE
CORPORATION; POLYMATHIC
PROPERTIES, INC.; CHARLES B. WOOD
III, SBN 163146, attorney at law;
MATTIC LAW OFFICES; and DOES 1
THROUGH 50, inclusive,
No. C 11-3850 CW
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF SOBAYO'S
MOTION TO PAY
FILING FEE IN
INSTALLMENTS AND
DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND
Defendants.
________________________________/
20
Pro se Plaintiffs Dwayne William Mack and Nathaniel Basola
21
Sobayo filed this action on August 5, 2011.
They both filed
motions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
On October 20, 2011,
22
23
the Court issued an Order Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff
24
Sobayo's Application to Proceed IFP, Granting Plaintiff Mack's
25
Application and Dismissing Complaint Without Prejudice to refiling
26
an amended complaint.
The Court explained that Plaintiff Sobayo's
27
IFP application was incomplete and granted him leave to supplement
28
1
it.
2
and Plaintiff Sobayo filed a motion to pay the filing fee in seven
3
installments.
4
On November 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
In support of his motion, Plaintiff Sobayo merely states that
5
he "is currently insolvent as a result of the current economic
6
conditions in this country."
7
leave to file a supplemental IFP application to explain his
8
financial situation.
9
application would document this.
The Court granted Plaintiff Sobayo
If he is insolvent, a completed IFP
However, because he chose not to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
complete an IFP application and does not submit evidence in
11
support of his statement that he is insolvent, the Court denies
12
his motion to pay the filing fee in seven installments.
13
the issue may be moot because the Court dismisses the case.
14
However,
The Court's October 20, 2011 Order explained that, because
15
Plaintiffs alleged only state law claims, there was no federal
16
jurisdiction, but noted that Plaintiffs appeared to allege a cause
17
of action under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
18
(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
19
amend to state such a claim, if Plaintiffs could truthfully do so.
20
In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs attempt to allege a claim
21
based on a violation of the FDCPA.
22
provisions of the statute; they do not allege facts to show how
23
each Defendant sued under this statute engaged in conduct that
24
violated the statute.
25
The Court granted leave to
However, they only list the
A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the
26
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
27
Civ. P. 8.
28
action, supported by mere conclusory statements," are insufficient
Fed. R.
"Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
2
1
to state a claim.
2
(2009).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50
3
CONCLUSION
4
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint is dismissed without
5
leave to amend.
6
prejudice to refiling in state court.
The state law claims are dismissed without
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
Dated: 12/1/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?