Newman et al v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER Denying 16 Motion for Order. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/24/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PERLITA NEWMAN, and GEORGE
NEWMAN,

15

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No.: 16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

v.

(ECF No. 16)

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

On May 10, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. (ECF

19

No. 15.) The Court found that Plaintiffs had not established that subject matter jurisdiction

20

exists over this case nor have they proven that this Court has personal jurisdiction over

21

Defendants. (Id. at 3–4.) The Court permitted Plaintiffs an opportunity to file a second

22

amended complaint. The Court informed Plaintiffs that they were to detail the “specific

23

laws that Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated. The Complaint must also detail why this

24

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and personal jurisdiction over

25

Defendants.” (Id. at 4.)

26

Plaintiffs have filed a document titled “Proposed order, that the dismissal and case

27

closing, or 4/9/2018 be set aside, and the complaint re-opened, for the reasons set out

28

below, and the Defendant ordered, to retract the false filings, or a foreclosure, with the
1
16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)

1

three credit agencies.” (ECF No. 16.) This document cannot be construed as a second

2

amended complaint. It does not provide any basis for jurisdiction, as the Court requested,

3

but only details Plaintiffs’ allegation that their property has not been foreclosed upon, that

4

Defendant is aware of this lawsuit, and again generally states that Defendants have violated

5

“both Federal and State laws[] concerning real property foreclosures.” (Id. at 2.)

6

The Court again reminds Plaintiffs that they do not have an operative complaint in

7

front of this Court. Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint. Without one, the Court will

8

not reopen this case. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion. As the Court previously

9

ordered:

10

Plaintiffs SHALL file a second amended complaint on or before June 25, 2018. If

11

Plaintiffs file a second amended complaint, their case will be reopened. The Court will

12

again screen Plaintiffs’ Complaint and will direct the U.S. Marshals to serve the Complaint

13

if it passes screening. If Plaintiffs fail to file a second amended complaint by this date,

14

their case will remain closed.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: May 24, 2018

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
16-CV-2053-JLS (NLS)