Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01659/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01659-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES H. GEROW and CAROLYN No. 2:09-cv-01659-MCE-GGH 

FIGUIERA-GEROW

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HOMEQ SERVICING; EQUIFIRST

CORPORATION; T.D. SERVICE

COMPANY; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;

UNITED MORTGAGE AND REALTY

SOLUTIONS, INC.; BRIANNA

WATERS; DAVID MICHAEL RISSE;

and DOES 1 through 200,

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This action arises out of a mortgage loan transaction in

which Plaintiffs James H. Gerow and Carolyn Figuiera-Gerow

(“Plaintiffs”) refinanced their home in 2007. Presently before

the Court is a Motion by Defendants EquiFirst Corporation, HomeQ

Servicing, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

(collectively “Defendants”) to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

Case 2:09-cv-01659-MCE -GGH Document 35 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 230(g). 

2

Plaintiffs have not completely opposed Defendants’ Motion. 

Rather, Plaintiffs have submitted a Statement of Non-Opposition

in which they request that a portion of their complaint as it

relates to their state law causes of action be dismissed. 

Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Motion to Dismiss on the

remaining federal claims.

In light of Plaintiffs’ Statement of Non-Opposition to the

state law claims, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 30)

is GRANTED without leave to amend as to the state law claims.1

However, as a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the

remaining federal claims, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is

GRANTED with leave to amend as to said federal claims.

As a result of the failure to respond to the remaining

federal claims as required by Local Rule 230 (c), within ten (10)

days from the date this order is electronically filed,

Plaintiff’s counsel shall either (1) personally pay sanctions in

the amount of $250.00 to the Clerk of the Court or (2) show good

cause for the failure to completely comply with Local Rule 230

(c).

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:09-cv-01659-MCE -GGH Document 35 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint not later than

twenty (20) days after the date this Memorandum and Order is

filed electronically. If no amended complaint is filed within

said twenty (20)-day period, without further notice, Plaintiffs’

federal law claims will also be dismissed without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01659-MCE -GGH Document 35 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 3