Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01233/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01233-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:1640 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 - 08cv1233

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSARIO TINA and

JESUS G. TINA,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 08 CV 1233 JM (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

(Doc. No. 13)

vs.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,

AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER,

RECONTRUST COMPANY,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Rosario Tina and Jesus G. Tina, proceeding pro se, filed this action on July 10, 2008

against mortgage lender Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”), which does business as

America’s Wholesale Lender, and Countrywide’s trustee for foreclosure servicing, ReconTrust

Company (“ReconTrust”). (Doc. No. 1.) Concurrently, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a

temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction to stay the foreclosure of their

property scheduled for July 11, 2008. (Doc. No. 3.) The court denied the TRO request on August 5,

2008. (Doc. No. 12.) Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6),

and, in the alternative, for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). (Doc. No. 13.) On October

30, 2008 the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, granted the motion for a

more definite statement on the remaining claims, and gave Plaintiffs 45 days leave to file a First

Case 3:08-cv-01233-JM-NLS Document 25 Filed 01/05/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 08cv1233

Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 22.)

On December 22, 2008, Plaintiffs attempted to file a document entitled “First Amended

Complaint.” The document was rejected as untimely, having been filed beyond the 45-day leave

granted by the court. (Doc. No. 24.) In addition, the court rejects the document for failure of service

as the accompanying certificate of service was unsigned, and is therefore invalid, and it appears the

document was never served on the defendants in this case. Further, although the court provided

specific guidance as to the required content of a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’ submission

generally reiterates the allegations of the original Complaint and cures none of the deficiencies

outlined by in the court’s October 30 order. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

is REJECTED for filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01233-JM-NLS Document 25 Filed 01/05/09 Page 2 of 2