Bialla v. Bank of America, NA et al

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Granting 13 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 MELISSA BIALLA, 8 Plaintiff, No. C 12-0262 PJH 9 v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants. _______________________________/ 13 14 Pro se plaintiff Melissa Bialla (“plaintiff”) filed this action on January 18,2012, against 15 defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Recontrust Company, N.A. (collectively 16 “defendants”).1 On March 27, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. 17 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion within the time required under the Civil 18 Local Rules. Because the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary and would not be 19 helpful, the hearing date of May 16, 2012 is VACATED pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 20 For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 21 The complaint is dismissed because it is incomprehensible and unintelligible. The 22 court finds that plaintiffs have failed to assert "a short and plain statement of the claim 23 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal under 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is appropriate because the indecipherable allegations of 25 the complaint lack any cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable 26 27 28 1 Although Jeffrey-Thomas Smith is also named as a plaintiff in the caption of the complaint, Mr. Smith is not listed as a plaintiff on the docket, nor does he appear to be referenced in the body of the complaint. To the extent Mr. Smith does intend to proceed as a plaintiff in this case, he must correct the docket in this action, and furthermore appear in the action by signing any papers submitted to the court and served on defendants. 1 2 legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). The dismissal is with leave to amend. No later than May 21, 2012, plaintiffs may file 3 an amended complaint that comports with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure and the Civil Local Rules of this court. The amended complaint must allege a 5 basis for jurisdiction in this court; must state facts supporting the elements of the causes of 6 action; must allege cognizable causes of action, which must be set forth in separate 7 paragraphs; must specify which causes of action are asserted against which defendants; 8 and must be presented in the required format, as set forth in Civil Local Rule 3-4. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: April 20, 2012 12 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?