Ramos et al v. Pro30 Funding et al
Filing
11
ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants with Prejudice. This order disposes of this matter in its entirety. The Court instructs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and terminate the case. No further filings will be accepted in this action. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 5/19/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CESAR RAMOS, et al.,
CASE NO. 11cv261-MMA (BGS)
Plaintiffs,
12
vs.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
13
14
PRO30 FUNDING, et al.,
16
[Doc. No. 8]
Defendants.
15
On February 8, 2011, Plaintiffs Cesar Ramos, et al. commenced this action against
17
Defendants Pro30 Funding, et al. Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.
18
(“MERS”) and Wells Fargo Bank now move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint pursuant
19
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) as vague and uncertain, or in the alternative, pursuant to
20
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition
21
to the motion.
22
Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair
23
notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev.
24
Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Here, Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is not only
25
frivolous and void of any plausible claims for relief, it is almost completely unintelligible. It is
26
therefore subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(e), and 12(b)(6).
27
Because “it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by
28
amendment,” the Court DISMISSES the complaint with prejudice. Franklin v. Murphy, 245 F.2d
-1-
11cv261
1
1221, 1228 n.9 (9th Cir. 1984); Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass’n v. Klamath Med Serv. Bureau,
2
701 F.2d 1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[F]utile amendments should not be permitted”).
3
Furthermore, the Court notes that it “may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as to
4
defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a position similar to that of
5
moving defendants or where claims against such defendants are integrally related.” Silverton v.
6
Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981). “Such a dismissal may be made without
7
notice where the [plaintiffs] cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d
8
986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court’s authority in this regard includes sua sponte dismissal as to
9
defendants who have not been served and defendants who have not yet answered or appeared.
10
Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1995) (“We have
11
upheld dismissal with prejudice in favor of a party which had not yet appeared, on the basis of facts
12
presented by other defendants which had appeared.”); see also Bach v. Mason, 190 F.R.D. 567, 571
13
(D. Idaho 1999); Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 978-79 (S.D. Cal. 1998). Although
14
Defendants Pro30 Funding, Alliance Title Company, Deborah Bass, and Vassalees have not yet
15
appeared in this action, these defendants are in a position similar to that of Defendants MERS and
16
Wells Fargo. Even if properly served, they cannot possibly be expected to answer or otherwise
17
respond to Plaintiffs’ unintelligible pleading. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims
18
against these defendants with prejudice.
19
This order disposes of this matter in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court instructs the Clerk
20
of Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and terminate the case. No further filings will be
21
accepted in this action.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 19, 2011
24
25
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge
26
27
28
-2-
11cv261
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?