Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05569/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05569-0/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICENTE ALMARAZ,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-5569 BZ

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO DISMISS

Defendants J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (“J.P. Morgan”),

California Reconveyance Company (“California”), and Deutsche

Bank moved to dismiss the complaint on December 22, 2010. 

Defendant Nestor Ramirez (“Ramirez”) joined in the motion to

dismiss on January 11, 2010. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

3, if plaintiff elected to oppose the motion, his response was

due January 27, 2010. No opposition has been filed. 

The motion of defendant JP Morgan to dismiss the

complaint is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Having taken

judicial notice of the purchase and assumption agreement

between the FDIC and J.P. Morgan, I find that J.P. Morgan did

not assume many of the claims against Washington Mutual which

Case 3:09-cv-05569-BZ Document 19 Filed 02/16/10 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

1 J.P. Morgan’s argument that it is not subject to

liability for Washington Mutual’s acts under the Asset Purchase

Agreement is well taken. 

2

plaintiff has alleged in his complaint. Based on the poorly

pled allegations of the complaint, it is unclear whether

plaintiff claims J.P. Morgan directly violated any of

plaintiff’s rights. The claims plaintiff pled against 

J.P. Morgan are inadequate and do not allow “the court to draw

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009). The complaint conflates the factual allegations

regarding J.P. Morgan and Washington Mutual. Further,

plaintiff’s practice of general, undirected allegations

hampers the Court’s ability to decide whether plaintiff has

stated a claim against any defendant.1

 Accordingly, J.P.

Morgan’s motion to dismiss all claims is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND. 

Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND. The factual allegations concerning Deutsche Bank

are plainly inadequate. See Id. California’s motion to

dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for the same reason.

The allegations regarding Ramirez are similarly conclusory,

unspecific, and inadequate under Iqbal. Ramirez’s motion to

dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

The Court is troubled by the unfocused nature of some of

the allegations of the complaint, and plaintiff’s failure to

file an opposition. Plaintiff and his counsel are reminded of

their Rule 11 obligations. If plaintiff wishes to prosecute

Case 3:09-cv-05569-BZ Document 19 Filed 02/16/10 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

this action, he shall file an amended complaint by FEBRUARY

24, 2010. The hearing scheduled for FEBRUARY 17, 2010 is

VACATED.

Dated: February 16, 2010 

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\ALMAREZ V. JP MORGAN CHASE\DISM ORD.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-05569-BZ Document 19 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 3