Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00900/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00900-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

 The request for oral argument is denied. The parties have fully briefed the issues and oral

argument will not aid the Court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Lake at Las Vegas

Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cynthia J. Cantrell, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Brian T. Moynihan, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0900 PHX DGC

ORDER

Defendant Bruce Paradis has filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. #11. The motion is fully

briefed. Dkt. ##14, 17. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a reply to Paradis’s reply and a motion

to compel this Court “TO ADHERE TO ARIZONA REVISED STATUES [sic] PURSUANT

TO: EERIE [sic] DOCTRINE.” Dkt. #19 (capitalization in original). Defendants Brian T.

Moynihan, James F. Taylor, Angelo Mazilo, and R. K. Arnold have also filed a motion to

dismiss. Dkt. #12. The motion is fully briefed. Dkt. ##16, 18. Plaintiff has filed a reply to

Defendants’ reply and a motion to compel the Court “TO ADHERE TO ARIZONA

REVISED STATUES [sic] PURSUANT TO: EERIE [sic] DOCTRINE.” Dkt. #20. Plaintiff

has also filed an emergency request for a temporary restraining order and for temporary and

permanent injunctive relief. Dkt. #24. 

For reasons that follow, the Court will grant both motions to dismiss (Dkt. ##11, 12)

without prejudice and will deny Plaintiff’s motions to compel (Dkt. ##19, 20). Because the

Court will dismiss the complaint, the request for a temporary restraining order and for

injunctive relief (Dkt. #24) must be denied.1

Case 2:10-cv-00900-ROS Document 36 Filed 06/16/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

I. Background.

In May of 2006, Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement for real property located at

10459 East Hillery Drive in Scottsdale, Arizona. Dkt. #12-1 at 2-28. The property was set

to be sold at a trustee’s sale on May 17, 2010 due to non-payment of the loan by Plaintiff.

Dkt. #1-2 at 49-50. According to Plaintiff, the property is now set to be sold at a trustee’s

sale on June 23, 2010. Dkt. #24 at 2.

On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court against

several Defendants involved in the loan agreement and the trustee’s sale. Dkt. #1-1. On

April 23, 2010, Defendants removed the case to this Court on the ground that Plaintiff raised

federal claims in her complaint. Dkt. #1.

II. Legal Standard.

 “To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual

allegations; rather, it must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on

its face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A pleading must contain a “short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than

an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.

Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported

by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Moreover, the complaint must “give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly,

550 U.S. at 555 (2007).

III. Defendants’ Motions.

Defendant Paradis argues that Plaintiff’s complaint is a “largely incomprehensible

127-page manifesto that appears to have been cobbled together from various internet sites,

and that, despite its girth, does not contain a single allegation against any specific defendant.”

Dkt. #11 at 2. Defendant further contends that Plaintiff has failed to assert any factual

allegations against him and that the complaint is “merely a statement of conclusions of fact

Case 2:10-cv-00900-ROS Document 36 Filed 06/16/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

and law which do not provide Defendant with fair notice of Plaintiff’s claims against him nor

the ground upon which such claims rest.” Id. at 2-3. In response, Plaintiff contends that her

complaint is not subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that, as a result, the

Court cannot dismiss it pursuant to Rule 8 or Rule 12(b)(6). The Court disagrees. Once a

case has been removed to federal court, it is subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 465 (1965) (“[F]ederal courts are to apply state substantive

law and federal procedural law.”). 

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s complaint is not a model of clarity. The causes of

action asserted by Plaintiff, and the Defendants against whom the various claims are asserted,

cannot be determined from the complaint. As a result, the Court cannot find that the

complaint “give[s] the defendant[s] fair notice of what the . . . claim[s] [are] and the grounds

upon which [they] rest.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (2007). Moreover, the Court finds that

Plaintiff’s complaint violates Rule 8(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

requires that “[e]ach allegation [] be simple, concise, and direct.” Complaints that are

“verbose, confusing and conclusory” violate Rule 8(d) and may be dismissed. See Nevijel

v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff’s complaint is

confusing and conclusory and the allegations against Defendants are not simple, concise, or

direct. As a result, the Court will grant Paradis’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(6).

Defendants Moynihan, Taylor, Mazilo, and Arnold have also filed a motion to dismiss

in which they make numerous substantive arguments about why the Court should dismiss

Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. As discussed above, however, it is not clear to the Court

what causes of action Plaintiff is bringing and against which Defendants. The Court

therefore finds that it is premature to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on

substantive grounds. The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

and will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by July 9, 2010.

Plaintiff is directed to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)

provides, in pertinent part:

Case 2:10-cv-00900-ROS Document 36 Filed 06/16/10 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief ... shall contain (1) a short and

plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, . . .

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(d) provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and

direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

Plaintiff is advised that she must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the Clerk of Court’s office. In preparing

an amended complaint, Plaintiff should consult Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 84 and the

“Appendix of Forms” referenced therein because such forms “are sufficient under the rules

and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules

contemplate.”

If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or comply with the rules or any Court order,

the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to

comply with a court order). 

IV. Plaintiff’s Motions.

Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel this Court to adhere to the Arizona Revised

Statutes pursuant to the “Eerie” doctrine. Dkt. ##19, 20. The Court has examined Plaintiff’s

motions and cannot determine what Plaintiff is seeking. If Plaintiff is requesting that the

Court apply Arizona law in deciding this case, the Court cannot respond to her blanket

assertion. The Court will endeavor to apply the correct law at each stage and to each claim

of this case, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hanna, 380 U.S. at 465

(“[F]ederal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law.”). 

Plaintiff has also filed an expedited motion for a temporary restraining order and for

injunctive relief. Dkt. #24. Because the Court must dismiss the complaint, the Court will

deny the motion. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she may re-file her

Case 2:10-cv-00900-ROS Document 36 Filed 06/16/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

motion for a temporary restraining order after filing her amended complaint.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant Paradis’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #11) is granted. The claims are

dismissed without prejudice.

2. Defendants Moynihan, Taylor, Mazilo, and Arnold’s motion to dismiss

(Dkt #12) is granted. The claims are dismissed without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s motions to compel (Dkt. ##19, 20) are denied.

4. Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and for injunctive relief

(Dkt. #24) is denied.

5. Plaintiff shall have until July 9, 2010 to file an amended complaint. If

Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by that date, the Clerk of Court

shall terminate this action without further order of the Court.

DATED this 16th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00900-ROS Document 36 Filed 06/16/10 Page 5 of 5