Pitogo v. Credit Suisse Financial Corporation et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 4 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The court orders Plaintiff's counsel, David St. John and Dean Browning Webb, to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for repeated violations of Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). Plaintiff's counsel shall appear for hearing on August 21, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 16. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 8/3/09. (tkl) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. MARIO A. PITOGO, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09 CV 1061 JM (NLS) ORDER: 1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; and 2) TO SHOW CAUSE Doc. No. 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CREDIT SUISSE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., FAIR VALLEY FINANCIAL, INC., ALI C. NAYAB, and BRANDO ONA MADRIGAL, Defendants.

On May 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant action advancing claims arising out of a home mortgage loan transaction. (Doc. No. 1, "Compl.") Defendants Credit Suisse Financial Corporation, Quality Loan Service Corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") are the only named defendants yet served in the action. Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 4.) To date, Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the motion, nor a statement of non-opposition, as required by this court's local rules. Under these circumstances, it is within the court's discretion to grant the motion to dismiss under Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c).

-1-

09cv1061

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Because the lack of opposition indicates Plaintiff's concurrence with the arguments set forth by Defendants, and because the court agrees with Defendants that the entire Complaint fails to meet federal pleading standards under Rule 8, Defendants' motion is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety. In addition, the court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff's counsel, David St. John and Dean Browning Webb, TO SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed for repeated violations of Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c).1 Plaintiff's counsel shall appear for hearing on this matter on Friday, August 21, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 16. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 3, 2009 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge

The court notes Plaintiff's counsels' failure to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition is the latest in a long line of similar transgressions. See, e.g., Andrade v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, Case No. 09-cv-0377 (two motions unopposed); Watts v. Decision One Mortgage Co., Case No. 09-cv-0043 (three motions unopposed); and Cataulin v. Washington Mutual Bank, Case No. 08-cv-2419 (four motions unopposed). -209cv1061

1