Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02059/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02059-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

 The court notes that leave to amend is not an order that 1

plaintiff must amend. Rather, if plaintiff does not file an amended

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO VICTORIA,

NO. CIV. S-09-2059 LKK/KJM

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK;

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; O R D E R

and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive.

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff brings several causes of action against bank

defendants concerning his home mortgage and foreclosure thereon.

On December 29, 2009, this court granted in part and denied in part

defendant JP Morgan Chase N.A.’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

complaint. In that order, the court granted plaintiff leave within

twenty (20) days to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, 1

Case 2:09-cv-02059-KJM-CKD Document 22 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 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

complaint, he will only be proceeding on claims that survived the

motion to dismiss.

2

plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint through

January 19, 2010. On February 18, 2010, defendant JP Morgan Chase

N.A. filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff failed

to file an amended complaint, which is set to be heard on March 22,

2010. On March 8, 2010, plaintiff filed an opposition to

defendant’s motion, which was essentially a motion for leave to

file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s attorney declares that he

failed to timely file his amended complaint because he was unable

to attend this court’s September 28, 2009 hearing on defendant’s

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s original complaint. This argument is

nonsensical in that plaintiff was granted leave to amend his

original complaint in the December 29, 2009 order. Leave to amend

was not discussed or considered at the September 28, 2009 hearing.

On September 29, 2009, the court filed an order setting a

status (pretrial scheduling) conference for February 22, 2010 at

1:30 p.m. Parties were instructed to file status reports ten (10)

days prior to the status conference. Plaintiff failed to file

a status report, despite being called by chambers on February 19,

2010 to remind him to submit the report. Accordingly, on February

22, 2010, this court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to show cause for

his failure to file a status report. Plaintiff’s counsel was given

fourteen days to file a response, in writing, as to why sanctions

in the amount of $150 should not issue. Plaintiff’s response was

due on March 8, 2010. Plaintiff failed to file a response.

Case 2:09-cv-02059-KJM-CKD Document 22 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 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

3

Further, on February 22, 2010, the court continued the status

conference until March 15, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s status report was due to be filed on March 4, 2010.

Despite having been called by chambers to file a status report and

having received an order to show cause for his failure to file a

status report, plaintiff has again failed to file a status report

before the rescheduled status conference.

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

1. Counsel for plaintiff is SANCTIONED in the amount of one

hundred and fifty ($150.00) dollars for his initial

failure to file a status report. This sum shall be paid

to the Clerk of the Court no later than thirty (30) days

from the date of this order. Counsel shall file an

affidavit accompanying the payment of this sanction

which states that it is paid personally by counsel, out

of personal funds, and is not and will not be billed,

directly or indirectly, to the client or in any way made

the responsibility of the client as attorneys' fees or

costs.

2. Counsel for plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in

writing why a sanction of dismissal of this case should

not issue, in accordance with Local Rule 110, within

fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this order for (a)

his failure to file a response to this court’s February

22, 2010 order to show cause, (b) his failure to timely

file an amended complaint, and (c) his second failure to

Case 2:09-cv-02059-KJM-CKD Document 22 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 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

4

file a status report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), Link v.

Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962). As discussed

above, the inability of plaintiff’s counsel to attend

the September 28, 2009 hearing does not constitute good

cause.

3. Counsel for plaintiff is further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

in writing why this court should not order the Clerk of

the Court to serve a copy of this order and any

subsequent order sanctioning plaintiff’s counsel on the

State Bar of California. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 10, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02059-KJM-CKD Document 22 Filed 03/10/10 Page 4 of 4