Thomas et al v. Chevy Chase Bank

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 8 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2013)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
RODOLFO AND ROBERTA E. THOMAS,
6
Plaintiff(s),

No. C 12-4290 PJH

7
v.
8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

CHEVY CHASE BANK F.S.B.,
9
10

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

11

Before the court is defendant Chevy Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs

12

Rodolfo and Roberta E. Thomas’s complaint as “incomprehensible, nonsensical, and

13

incoherent.” Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Because

14

there is no discernable legal basis for plaintiffs’ complaint, the court hereby GRANTS

15

defendant’s motion and dismisses the complaint.

16

Although the court is of the opinion that re-pleading will not resolve the deficiencies

17

in the complaint, the court will nonetheless allow plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended

18

complaint. For that amended complaint to be successful, plaintiffs must specify the number

19

of defendants being sued and identify each defendant by official name; must allege

20

separate causes of action; must state a constitutional or statutory basis for each cause of

21

action; and must allege facts showing each defendant’s personal involvement in the

22

wrongful act alleged in each cause of action. If plaintiffs fail to file the amended complaint

23

by January 23, 2013, or if they file an amended complaint not in accordance with the above

24

instructions, the case will be dismissed with prejudice.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 2, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge