Benefield et al v. Bryco Funding, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT BRYCO FUNDING, INC. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 8/13/2014. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

DANIEL BENEFIELD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

v.

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT
BRYCO FUNDING, INC.

BRYCO FUNDING, INC., et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-1459 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

Plaintiffs Daniel Benefield and Deborah A. Benefield filed this action on April 22,

14

2013, in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging thirteen causes of action, in connection

15

with a loan they obtained from defendant Bryco Funding, Inc. ("Bryco") in 2006, secured by

16

a promissory note and deed of trust on property located in Oakland, California. On March

17

24, 2014, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the sole defendant that had been served as of that

18

date, removed the case to this court.

19

The background facts are as stated in the court's June 10, 2014 order granting the

20

motion to dismiss filed by defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. f/k/a Washington Mutual

21

Bank; JP Morgan Bank, N.A., successor-in-interest to Washington Mutual Bank; Chase

22

Home Finance, LLC; Mortgage Electronic Registration System; and Deutsche Bank

23

National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust.

24

At the June 4, 2014, hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court noted that Bryco

25

had not entered an appearance, and asked plaintiffs whether Bryco had been served with

26

the summons and complaint. Plaintiffs, who are proceeding in propria persona, responded

27

that Bryco had been served. The court directed plaintiffs to file a proof of service no later

28

than June 11, 2014, showing service of the summons and complaint on Bryco.

1

In the June 10, 2014 order, the court dismissed all thirteen causes of action, giving

2

leave to amend as to the first, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and

3

twelfth causes of action. The dismissal of the second, fifth, ninth, and thirteenth causes of

4

action was with prejudice. In addition, the court reiterated that plaintiffs had until June 11,

5

2014 to file a proof of service as to Bryco, and stated that if no proof of service was filed,

6

Bryco would be dismissed from the case.

7

Plaintiffs have not filed a proof of service showing service of the summons and

8

complaint on Bryco. Accordingly, defendant Bryco Funding, Inc., is hereby DISMISSED

9

from the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: August 13, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2