Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00352/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00352-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On the July 23, 2015, the Court issued the summonses (Docs. 2-9) and its order setting the 

mandatory scheduling conference. (Doc. 10) Not until the court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why 

the matter should not be dismissed did they make any effort to serve Defendants.1 (Docs. 11-17) 

Even still, they have never filed proofs of service as to Defendants Chase Home Finance, LLC, Lasalle 

Bank, N.A. or Washington Mutual Bank, FSB. Nevertheless, all defendants have now appeared in the 

action. (Docs. 18, 23)

 

1 At the same time, the Court continued the scheduling conference to January 8, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. (Doc. 11 at 2) This 

order was served on Plaintiffs at their address of record and, indeed, Plaintiff, Ms. Miner, responded and impliedly 

acknowledged receipt of the order. (Doc. 12)

CAROLYN MINER, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

BARBARA FERRANTI, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00352 --- JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY

COURT ORDERS AND ON THE GROUNDS OF 

RES JUDICATA

ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS MILTON MINER 

FAMILY TRUST AND DOUGLAS PRICHARD 

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE MATTER 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS TO THEM 

FOR THEIR FAILURE TO SIGN THE 

COMPLAINT AND TO APPEAR IN THIS 

MATTER

Case 1:15-cv-00352---JLT Document 28 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

On January 8, 2015, the Court held the status conference re: consent/scheduling conference. In 

advance of that hearing, the parties were obligated to meet and confer to develop a joint scheduling 

conference report. (Doc. 10 at 3) Defendants filed the report but noted that attempted contact of 

Plaintiffs at their address of record, failed. (Doc. 26 at 2) Likewise, when Defendants attempted 

contact at the telephone listed on the complaint, the person who answered denied Plaintiffs lived at 

that location. Id. In addition, no Plaintiff appeared at the hearing.

In the meanwhile, the Court has become aware that Plaintiff, Barbara Miner, has prosecuted an 

action that arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts, in state court. In that matter, the court 

issued judgment against her and it was upheld by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Miner v. Chase 

Home Finance, 2014 WL 2466903 (June 3, 2014). In that appeal, the Court upheld the determination 

that Ms. Miner failed to tender in the underlying foreclosure. The Court noted that Ms. Miner had 

tendered payment via an “International Money Order” which, Chase Bank discovered, was not 

negotiable. Id. at *3. The Court observed that, 

Evidence in the record indicates plaintiff testified in deposition that she obtained the 

IMO from a nonprofit organization called Equishare, a humanitarian group that helped 

homeowners; her contact there was Douglas Prichard. He sent the IMO directly to 

Chase. Plaintiff could not explain why the United States Treasury would pay off her 

home loan; she simply relied on Prichard’s representations to her. Plaintiff admitted she 

did not have the funds to pay off her home loan personally, and she paid Equishare 

$6,000 for its services.

Id. at n. 2. Thus, the Court held, “While her declaration asserts plaintiff tendered payment in the form 

of the IMO, it does not provide any evidence that the IMO was honored and paid, or that Chase 

received any funds from it in payment of her loan. Nothing in her declaration disputes defendants’

evidence that the IMO was returned unpaid, the loan was reinstated, and plaintiff failed to pay the 

balance due and owing.” Id. at *4. Thus, the Court concluded, “Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a 

triable issue remained as to any material fact. Consequently, summary judgment in defendants' favor 

was properly granted.” Id.

Finally, the Court notes that Mr. Douglas Prichard did not sign the complaint whether on his 

own behalf or on behalf of the Milton Miner Family Trust and there is no showing that he has agreed 

to be a plaintiff in this case. Notably, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) requires the complaint to be signed the 

party if he is unrepresented. This subjects the complaint to dismissal as to these plaintiffs. Lawton v. 

Case 1:15-cv-00352---JLT Document 28 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Medevac Mid-Am., Inc., 138 F.R.D. 586, 588 (D. Kan. 1991). Likewise, there is no showing that Mr. 

Prichard2is an attorney, which is required for him to represent the trust in this matter. C.E. Pope 

Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987) [“Because Stradley is not the 

actual beneficial owner of the claims being asserted by the Trusts (so far as one can tell from the 

record), he cannot be viewed as a “party” conducting his “own case personally” within the meaning of 

Section 1654. He may not claim that his status as trustee includes the right to present arguments pro se 

in federal court.”]

Though Ms. Miner has participated minimally in this action, Mr. Prichard and the Trust have

had no involvement. While it appears she is attempting to represent the interests of all Plaintiffs, Ms. 

Miner may not represent anyone other than herself in this action. McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 

286, 288 (9th Cir.1966). Indeed, this Court’s Local Rule 183(a) reads, “Any individual who is 

representing himself or herself without an attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance 

by an attorney admitted to the Bar of this Court and may not delegate that duty to any other individual, 

including husband or wife, or any other party on the same side appearing without an attorney . . . All 

obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. 

Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other 

sanction appropriate under these Rules.” (Emphasis added)

Therefore, the Court ORDERS,

1. No later than January 22, 2016, all Plaintiffs SHALL show cause in writing why the 

matter should not be dismissed for their failure to comply the Court’s orders and due to the fact that 

the Fifth District Court of Appeal has determined already operative facts applicable to this case;

2. No later than January 22, 2016, Plaintiff, Douglas Prichard, SHALL show cause in 

writing why the matter should not be dismissed for his failure to sign the complaint and to appear in 

this action;

3. No later than January 22, 2016, Plaintiff, Milton Miner Family Trust, SHALL show 

 

2 As noted above, in the action in the Court of Appeal, Ms. Miner identified Mr. Prichard as a person 

who worked for a company called “Equishare” and not as anyone with any beneficial interest in the 

trust.

Case 1:15-cv-00352---JLT Document 28 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

cause in writing why the matter should not be dismissed for its failure to sign the complaint and to 

appear in the action through counsel.

Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the 

dismissal of the action as to one or all Plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00352---JLT Document 28 Filed 01/08/16 Page 4 of 4