Lanham v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/9/2018: GRANTING 13 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted and DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Donald R. Lanham) (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DONALD R. LANHAM,
Case No. 17-CV-1229-JPS
WELLS FARGO BANK NA, HSBC
BANK USA NA, and JOHN DOES 1–
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action on September 11, 2017.
(Docket #1). On October 12, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(Docket #6). In response, Plaintiff requested leave to amend his complaint,
(Docket #10), which the Court granted, (Docket #11). Plaintiff filed his
amended complaint on November 16, 2017. (Docket #12).
On November 28, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. (Docket #13). Defendants complain that the amended
complaint cured none of the deficiencies in the original. (Docket #14 at 1).
They argue that each count of the amended complaint fails to state a viable
claim, and request that the entire complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Id. at 17.
Combining the time allotted under the Local Rules—twenty-one
days—with the three-day extension provided in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(d) for responding to motions served by mail, Plaintiff had until
December 22, 2017 to file his response to Defendants’ motion. See Civ. L. R.
7(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). It is now two weeks since that deadline passed,
and Plaintiff has filed nothing and has not communicated with the Court in
any fashion. This absence of activity is all the more noticeable since Plaintiff
did timely request and receive an extension of time to respond to the
original motion to dismiss. There being no such request pending before the
Court now, and in the absence of any opposition to Defendants’ motion, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has waived any argument in support of his claims.
See Civ. L. R. 7(d) (“Failure to file a memorandum in opposition to a motion
is sufficient cause for the Court to grant the motion.”); Lekas v. Briley, 405
F.3d 602, 614 (7th Cir. 2005) (a party may abandon claims by failing to
defend them against a motion to dismiss).
This must be so despite Plaintiff’s pro se status; while the Court will
treat Plaintiff’s filings generously because he is not a lawyer, he has not filed
anything at all. “Our system of justice is adversarial and our judges are busy
people. If they are given plausible reasons for dismissing a complaint, they
are not going to do the plaintiff’s research and try to discover whether there
might be something to say against the defendants’ reasoning.” Kirksey v.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 1039, 1041 (7th Cir. 1999). As a
consequence, the Court is obliged to grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss
the amended complaint.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Docket #13) be and the
same is hereby GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Page 2 of 3
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 9th day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Court
Page 3 of 3
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?