Morris v. Homecomings Financial LLC

Filing 11

ORDER Granting 4 Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for More Definite Statement as Moot; and Granting Leave to File an Amended Complaint: Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to allege civil causes of action. But any and all amended claims agains t defendant are required to be filed in plaintiffs lower-numbered case, i.e., 07cv2122 L(NLS). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 9/2/2008. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SHAMELLE R. MORRIS, 12 13 v. 14 HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC, 15 16 17 Defendant. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08cv203-L (RBB) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [doc. #4]; DENYING MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AS MOOT; and GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant Homecomings Financial, LLC's moves to dismiss the above-captioned

18 complaint or alternatively, for a more definite statement. [doc. #4]. The Court takes judicial 19 notice that plaintiff previously filed a complaint in this Court, Morris v. Homecomings Financial 20 LLC, Wachovia Dealer Services, 07cv2122 L (NLS), that although not identical, appears to be 21 duplicative of the present case. The Court also notes that plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, 22 neither filed an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement, nor 23 sought an extension of time in which to respond to the motion. Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3 provides 24 that "[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the manner required by Civil Local Rule 25 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for 26 ruling by the court." 27 Because of plaintiff's failure to file a response in opposition to defendant's motion and

28 the duplicative nature of this complaint with plaintiff's previously filed complaint, the Court
07cv2122

1 grants defendants' motion to dismiss on the same grounds set forth in the Court's August 4, 2008 2 Order in 07cv2122. Specifically, the Court finds the present complaint fails to meet the pleading 3 standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff's complaint is almost unintelligible and 4 fails to give defendant notice of the claims she attempts to allege. Further, plaintiff cannot state 5 a claim against defendant of a criminal nature. Any civil claims plaintiff may have against 6 defendant must allege sufficient facts to support a legally available cause of action. Plaintiff has 7 failed to do so. Finally, plaintiff may file an amended complaint to allege civil causes of action. 8 But any and all amended claims against defendant are required to be filed in plaintiff's lower9 numbered case, i.e., 07cv2122 L(NLS), 10 Based on the foregoing, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the alternative

11 motion for more definite statement is DENIED as moot. Because plaintiff must file all claims 12 against defendant in the 07cv2122 L(NLS) action, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this 13 case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 DATED: September 2, 2008 16 17 18 19 COPY TO: 20 HON. NITA L. STORMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 23 24 25 26 27 28
2
07cv2122

M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge