Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01061/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01061-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 - 09cv1061

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO A. PITOGO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09 CV 1061 JM (NLS)

ORDER:

1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS; and

2) TO SHOW CAUSE

Doc. No. 4

v.

CREDIT SUISSE FINANCIAL

CORPORATION, QUALITY LOAN

SERVICE CORPORATION, MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEMS, INC., SELECT PORTFOLIO

SERVICING, INC., FAIR VALLEY

FINANCIAL, INC., ALI C. NAYAB, and

BRANDO ONA MADRIGAL,

Defendants.

On May 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant action advancing claims arising out of a home

mortgage loan transaction. (Doc. No. 1, “Compl.”) Defendants Credit Suisse Financial Corporation,

Quality Loan Service Corporation, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Select

Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) are the only named defendants yet served in the

action. Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 4.) To date, Plaintiff has filed no

opposition to the motion, nor a statement of non-opposition, as required by this court’s local rules.

Under these circumstances, it is within the court’s discretion to grant the motion to dismiss under Civil

Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). 

Case 3:09-cv-01061-JM-NLS Document 7 Filed 08/03/09 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

1

 The court notes Plaintiff’s counsels’ failure to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition is the latest in a long line of similar transgressions. See, e.g., Andrade v. Wachovia

Mortgage, FSB, Case No. 09-cv-0377 (two motions unopposed); Watts v. Decision One Mortgage

Co., Case No. 09-cv-0043 (three motions unopposed); and Cataulin v. Washington Mutual Bank, Case

No. 08-cv-2419 (four motions unopposed).

- 2 - 09cv1061

Because the lack of opposition indicates Plaintiff’s concurrence with the arguments set forth

by Defendants, and because the court agrees with Defendants that the entire Complaint fails to meet

federal pleading standards under Rule 8, Defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety.

In addition, the court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff’s counsel, David St. John and Dean Browning

Webb, TO SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed for repeated violations of Civil

Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c).1

 Plaintiff’s counsel shall appear for hearing on this matter on Friday,

August 21, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01061-JM-NLS Document 7 Filed 08/03/09 Page 2 of 2