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)

Download PDF
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?