Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08234/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08234-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Louis S. Rangel; Laurie C. Rangel, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

BAC Home Loans Servicing LP f/k/a

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP;

Darla Sproles, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8234-PCT-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiffs Louis S. Rangel and Laurie C. Rangel bring this action against BAC Home

Loans Servicing and Darla Sproles asserting allegations of wrongful foreclosure and

deceptive business practices. Plaintiffs originally filed this action in the Superior Court of

Arizona in Yavapai County on October 15, 2010 in order to prevent the foreclosure of

property located at 2450 Mountain View, Cottonwood Arizona (doc. 1, ex. 1). Defendants

removed the action to this court on November 24, 2010 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1332. The court has before it a motion to dismiss by defendants (doc. 8), and motion for

summary disposition (doc. 9). Plaintiffs have failed to respond.

On or about November 26, 2005, Joyce Hamlin borrowed $240,000.00 from American

Case 3:10-cv-08234-FJM Document 10 Filed 01/18/11 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

1

 Although plaintiffs did not attach the Note, Deed of Trust, and Trustee Sale

Information to the complaint, plaintiffs referenced them. Since they are matters of public

record they are properly subject to judicial notice. See Pesci v. IRS, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1189,

1191-92 (D. Nev. 1999), aff'd, 225 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 2000).

- 2 -

Wholesale Lender, as evidenced by a promissory note and deed of trust.1 Ms. Hamlin later

defaulted on her loan and plaintiffs do not allege the debt has been satisfied or brought

current. Plaintiff Laurie C. Rangel brings this action in her own name, asserting that she is

the sole owner of the property. Complaint at 5. Defendants seek dismissal, arguing that

plaintiffs lack standing, did not effectuate proper service, and fail to state a cause of action.

Plaintiffs response was due December 30, 2010. It is now January 18, 2011 and no

response has been filed. LRCiv 7.2(i) permits summary disposition of motions for noncompliance with briefing requirements. Failure to respond is deemed consent to the granting

of the motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to dismiss with

prejudice (doc. 8). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion for

summary disposition as moot (doc. 9).

DATED this 18th day of January, 2011.

Case 3:10-cv-08234-FJM Document 10 Filed 01/18/11 Page 2 of 2