Sanchez v. Torres et al

Filing 78

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 63 plaintiff's motion for an extension of time; denying 72 defendant Monterey County's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's amended complaint due by 5/25/2009. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION CHRISTINA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. SUZETTE Z. TORRES, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE, JANE E. BEDNAR, NAM NGUYEN, HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, CITIMORTGAGE, INC., JEFFERY H. LOWENTHAL, BRYAN M. KRAFT, ANGELO PAUL RUSSO, CITY OF SALINAS, ADAM M. GREELY, ANDY PHAM, MONTEREY COUNTY, EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES, LOANCITY.COM, JOHN H. MITCHELL, Defendants. / On December 18, 2008, this court granted the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") filed by the sole remaining defendant, the County of Monterey ("County"), with leave to amend. The order directed plaintiff to file her amended complaint as to the County by January 19, 2009, and further stated that "[i]f Sanchez has not filed it by that date, or secured an extension of time based on good cause, the court will dismiss as to Monterey without further notice." (Docket #52, December 18, 2008 Order at 11:24-25). When her amended pleading was due, Sanchez did not file an amended complaint. Instead, she filed a request No. C07-04174 HRL ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME; AND (2) DENYING MONTEREY COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS *E-FILED 5/14/2009*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[Re: Docket No. 63, 72]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

seeking an unspecified additional period of time to do so. She asserted that she could not file her amended pleading by the court-ordered deadline because of an alleged "medical condition" and because she did not "obtain legal advice in time." (See Docket #55). This court found no good cause for the requested extension, but nonetheless exercised its discretion to permit Sanchez some additional time to file her amended pleading as to the County. In its January 29, 2009 order granting a brief extension of time, this court stated that no further requests for an extension of this deadline would be entertained unless plaintiff submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury from a physician licensed to practice in California that her "medical condition" has, in fact, prevented her continuously since January 19, 2009 from drafting and filing an amended pleading and stating the reason for her inability as well as the date when she will be able. (Docket #59, January 29, 2009 Order). Sanchez once again requests an extension of time to file an amended complaint as to the County. The County opposes that motion. It also brings a separate motion to dismiss, requesting that this court now, in effect, modify its December 18, 2008 order and dismiss the SAC as to the County without leave to amend. This matter is suitable for determination without oral argument, and the noticed motion hearing is vacated. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers,1 this court grants plaintiff's motion for an extension of time and denies the County's motion to dismiss. Sanchez says that she did not receive this court's January 29, 2009 Order. She also claims that she could not have complied with the extended court-ordered deadline for an amended pleading because she recently underwent "leg surgery." With respect to plaintiff's proffered medical excuse, she has submitted a one-page document titled "Patient Visit Information" indicating she (under the name "Van K Lai") received treatment for a skin abscess on March 1, 2009. As per this court's January 29, 2009 order, this does not establish good cause for the requested extension.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The County's motion to dismiss was served on plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to file any opposition papers, and the time for filing an opposition has passed. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a).
1

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

As for plaintiff's alleged change of address ­ just prior to the filing of the instant motion, Sanchez appeared before this court during its regular civil law and motion calendar in the mistaken belief that a motion hearing had been set in this case. At that time, plaintiff said that she did not receive this court's January 29, 2009 Order at the 834 Tumbleweed Drive, Salinas, CA 93905 address of record and claimed that she had recently moved to a different address. The court's records indicate that, on February 6, 2009, orders issued on January 29, 2009 were returned by the post office as undeliverable. (Docket #60). Sanchez was advised to review the court's orders in the Clerk's Office. She was also directed to promptly file a notice of change of address. To date, no such notice has been filed. Curiously, instead of filing a notice of change of address, plaintiff proceeded to file the instant motion which continues to identify the address at 834 Tumbleweed Drive, Salinas, CA 93905 as her contact information. The County argues that this court should preclude Sanchez from filing an amended pleading. Here, it points out that it has not received any information from the U.S. Post Office that the County's mail sent to plaintiff at 834 Tumbleweed Drive, Salinas, CA 93905 was undeliverable. It represents that Sanchez has filed for bankruptcy numerous times, under different names,2 and that all of those matters have been dismissed ­ with the exception of a twelfth bankruptcy matter filed on February 6, 2009. It believes that Sanchez is a vexatious litigant, who routinely initiates litigation and other legal proceedings in bad faith as a means of preventing the County from complying with the law and from collecting delinquent property taxes. As detailed in prior orders of this court, plaintiff has, throughout this litigation, consistently failed to (a) timely file papers with the court, (b) meet court-ordered deadlines, and (c) make scheduled court appearances. The fact that Sanchez is representing herself does not absolve her of the responsibility to diligently prosecute her case and to adhere to rules that all litigants are required to follow. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that pro per litigants must follow the same procedural rules as represented parties). Moreover, As noted in this court's December 18, 2008 dismissal order, plaintiff goes by at least three different names ­ "Christina Sanchez," "Sylvia Nicole" and "Van Kim Lai" ­ and seems to use all three names interchangeably.
2

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

plaintiff has made blatant misrepresentations in her court filings. (See, e.g., Docket #13, November 27, 2007 Order at 4; Docket #52, December 18, 2008 Order at 9 n.5). There might well be cause for suspicion as to the circumstances which may have caused this court's January 29, 2009 orders to be returned as undeliverable. Nevertheless, because the court's records reflect that, for whatever reason, its January 29, 2009 orders were, in fact, not delivered to Sanchez, she will be given a very brief extension of time to file an amended complaint as to the County, the sole remaining defendant. Sanchez is further advised as follows: This will be the final extension given. No further requests for an extension will be entertained. If plaintiff fails to file an amended pleading by the new deadline, it will be considered grounds for immediate dismissal. Plaintiff has an obligation to keep the court and opposing parties of her current contact information. It has been well over 60 days since this court's January 2009 orders were returned as undeliverable, and plaintiff has not filed a change of address ­ despite her claim that she has moved to a new address. If mail directed to plaintiff at her address of record at 834 Tumbleweed Drive, Salinas, CA 93905 is again returned to the court as undeliverable, it will be considered grounds for immediate dismissal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-11. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint as to the

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated:

County is granted. Plaintiff's amended complaint shall be filed by May 25, 2009. Failure to amend by that date will be grounds for immediate dismissal. 2. The County's motion to dismiss the SAC without leave to amend is denied.

SO ORDERED. May 14, 2009 HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5:07-cv-4174 Notice electronically mailed to: Citimortgage, Inc. [e-mail] Edward Egan Smith [e-mail], [e-mail] Georgina Berenice Mendoza [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] Jessica Carolyn Grannis [e-mail] Susan J. Matcham [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] William K. Rentz [e-mail], [e-mail] Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. 5:07-cv-4174 Notice mailed to: Christina Sanchez 834 Tumbleweed Drive Salinas, CA 93905

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

5