Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01835/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01835-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACQUELINE A. WARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CMG MORTGAGE INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01835-YGR 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO FILE 

PROPER OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS, CONTINUING 

HEARINGS

The remaining defendants have filed motions to dismiss pro se plaintiff Jacqueline 

Warner’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 34 (“FAC”)), currently set for hearings on August 

4, August 11, and August 25, 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 46, 52, 55.)1 The Court hereby CONTINUES the 

hearings to Tuesday, September 1, 2015, at 2 p.m. in Courtroom 1 of the Federal Courthouse

located at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California. All three motions shall be heard on that 

calendar pending further notice from the Court.

Pursuant to this Court’s Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), plaintiff was required to file either a brief 

opposing each motion to dismiss her lawsuit, or a notice that she does not oppose dismissal. Said 

opposition briefs were required to comply with other applicable rules, including Civil Local Rule 

7-4. Instead, in response to the pending motions, plaintiff has filed numerous “notices” in 

multiple parts that are largely unintelligible or premised upon a mistaken understanding of the 

applicable rules. Plaintiff’s various responsive filings, instead of addressing the merits of 

defendants’ motions and presenting legal argument, typically (1) state that plaintiff “does not 

 

1

The Court hereby DENIES as moot defendant CMB Mortgage Inc.’s motion to dismiss the 

initial complaint (Dkt. No. 13), subsequently joined by defendant Orange Coast Title Company, 

because plaintiff subsequently filed an FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

15(a)(1)(B). Thus, the hearing on that motion set for July 28, 2015 is VACATED.

Case 4:15-cv-01835-YGR Document 60 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

consent to any new contract offer,” (2) indicate defendants “gave up all claims and defenses and 

standing to make any claim including the subject ‘MOTION TO DISMISS,’” and (3) attach copies 

of the defendants’ briefs with handwritten notes on each page indicating they were returned to 

sender and are therefore “VOID and UNLAWFUL and without effect” pursuant to the Uniform 

Commercial Code. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 50 at 4, 57 at 5, 57-1 at 2.)

Defendants have brought motions that argue plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to 

state a claim as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendants Ally Bank and Ally 

Financial, Inc. also argue the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(1). If the Court grants the motions, the case will likely be dismissed. See Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (holding that in order to survive a motion to dismiss, 

a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).

Plaintiff’s filings do not comply with the applicable rules and the Court therefore construes the 

pending motions as unopposed. If plaintiff wishes to oppose the pending motions to dismiss, she 

shall file a proper opposition brief. The Court hereby extends plaintiff’s time to file an opposition. 

By no later than July 22, 2015, plaintiff shall file a single opposition brief of no more than 25 

pages addressing all three motions to dismiss and the legal arguments contained therein. If 

plaintiff fails to file an opposition brief by the deadline, the motions shall be deemed unopposed

and the case may be dismissed for “failure to prosecute,” that is, a failure to meet deadlines and 

keep the lawsuit moving forward. Defendants’ replies thereto shall be filed by July 30, 2015.

The Court further notes that Ms. Warner may seek assistance at the Court’s Legal Help 

Center. The Legal Help Center may assist persons who do not have lawyers if they make an 

appointment. The Legal Help Center’s phone number is (415) 782-8982 and its website is 

http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersf.

This Order terminates Docket Number 13.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-01835-YGR Document 60 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2