Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00606/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00606-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 12:2601 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (findings &amp; purpose)

---

1 

18cv1892 JM(WVG) 

 19cv0606 JM(WVG) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT HUESO, an individual, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, 

INC; et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1892 JM(WVG) 

 19cv0606 JM(WVG) 

ORDER VACATING DEFAULT IN 

LOW NUMBERED CASE AND 

DISMISSING DUPLICATIVE 

ACTION 

Upon review of the complaints in two cases, Hueso v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 

Inc., et. al, 18cv1892 JM(WVG) (the “2018 Action”) and Hueso v. Select Portfolio 

Servicing, Inc., et. al.,19cv606 JM(WVG) (the “2019 Action”), it has come to the court’s

attention that these cases are not simply related but are in fact identical. Both cases allege 

Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (“RESPA”) violations in connection with the 

foreclosure proceedings on the same subject property and involve the same parties. Neither 

party drew the existence of this earlier action or the posture of these dual cases to the court’s 

attention. 

The 2018 Action was initiated on August 13, 2018 with the filing of the original 

complaint. (Doc. No. 1.) On October 18, 2018, Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, 

Inc., Quality Loan Service Corporation and Credit Suisse Financial Corporation filed a 

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) with a noticed 

hearing date of November 26, 2018. (Doc. No. 3.) On November 19, 2018, considering 

Case 3:19-cv-00606-JM-WVG Document 7 Filed 05/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv1892 JM(WVG) 

 19cv0606 JM(WVG) 

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

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion, and for the reasons set forth by Defendants, the 

court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. (Doc. No. 4.) The court 

did not grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On the same day, the court 

entered Judgment, (Doc. No. 5) and the Clerk of Court promptly closed the case. On 

November 20, 2018, without seeking leave of the court, Plaintiff filed an Amended 

Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 6.) On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Three Day 

Notice of Intent to Take Default Against Defendants (Doc. No. 7), asserting the deadline 

to file a responsive pleading to the FAC was December 11, 2018. (Id. at 2.) On January 

3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Clerk Default. (Doc. No. 8.) None of these 

subsequent filings were rejected by the Clerk’s Office or received discrepancy orders from 

the court. On April 30, 2019, the court, overlooking the earlier Judgment (Doc. No. 5), 

instructed the Clerk’s office to enter the requested default, (Doc. No. 9). 

On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint in the 2019 action and a summons 

issued. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2 on the docket in 19cv606.) On April 5, 2019, the 2019 Action was 

transferred from the Honorable Larry A. Burns to the undersigned pursuant to the low 

number rule. (Doc. No. 3 on the docket in 19cv606.) It appears that rather than inquire 

with the court as to the status of the 2018 Action, Plaintiff’s counsel simply chose to file a 

new lawsuit. The complaint in the 2019 Action is identical to the amended complaint in 

the 2018 action. (Compare Doc. No. 6 on the docket in 18cv1992 with Doc. No. 1 on the 

docket in 19cv606.) On April 30, 2019, Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., and 

Credit Suisse Financial Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) with a noticed hearing date of June 3, 2019 in the 2019 Action. 

(Doc. No. 5 on the docket in 19cv606). Notably, the motion to dismiss makes no mention 

of the earlier Judgment (Doc. No. 5 on the docket 18cv1892) entered in the 2018 Action. 

Thus, the court is faced with a unique situation. In the interests of justice, in order 

to avoid any possible forum shopping, and in fairness to the parties, the court has 

determined the best way to proceed is to reinstate the 2018 action, 18cv1892 JM(WVG). 

If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his claims against Defendants, he must either: 1) request 

Case 3:19-cv-00606-JM-WVG Document 7 Filed 05/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv1892 JM(WVG) 

 19cv0606 JM(WVG) 

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

leave to file the Amended Complaint, or 2) seek leave to file an opposition to the motion 

to dismiss. Plaintiff has up to and including May 21, 2019, to file his motion and is 

reminded that the grounds under which he seeks relief must be in accordance with to the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

In light of the above, the Court ORDERS: 

1. the Clerk’s Entry of Default in 18cv1892 JM(WVG) is hereby VACATED; 

and, 

2. the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to CLOSE 19cv606 JM(WVG). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 8, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-00606-JM-WVG Document 7 Filed 05/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3