Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00608/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00608-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH J. PONTHIEUX, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; 

AZTEC FORECLOSURE 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-0608 JAM DB PS

ORDER

Plaintiffs, Keith J. Ponthieux, Chris Duenas, and Maria Duenas, are proceeding in this 

action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 

302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 21, 2020, the undersigned issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part. (ECF No. 

48.) 

In recommending dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act, the undersigned relied on the second amended complaint’s acknowledgment that defendant 

Nationstar “purportedly acquired the mortgage servicing rights to Plaintiffs’ debt obligation[.]” 

(Sec. Am. Compl. (ECF No. 32) at 10; F&Rs (ECF No. 48) at 7.) The undersigned interpreted 

plaintiffs’ use of “purportedly” to mean that it appeared to be, or was, true. 

////

Case 2:18-cv-00608-TLN-DB Document 53 Filed 03/11/20 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

2

However, on February 4, 2020, plaintiffs filed objections. Therein, plaintiffs explain that 

their use of “purportedly” intended to convey that defendant did not acquire the mortgage 

servicing rights to plaintiffs’ debt obligation.1 (ECF No. 51.) Defendants elected to not file any 

reply to plaintiffs’ objections. 

In light of plaintiffs’ representations, the undersigned will vacate the January 21, 2020 

findings and recommendations and grant plaintiffs’ further leave to amend one final time. Again, 

plaintiffs are cautioned that if plaintiffs elect to file a third amended complaint “the tenet that a 

court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal 

conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “While 

legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be supported by factual 

allegations.” Id. at 679. Those facts must be sufficient to push the claims “across the line from 

conceivable to plausible[.]” Id. at 680 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

557 (2007).

Plaintiffs are also reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

an amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to prior pleadings. The third amended complaint will 

supersede the second amended complaint, just as the amended complaint superseded the original 

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Thus, in a third amended 

complaint, just as if it were the initial complaint filed in the case, each defendant must be listed in 

the caption and identified in the body of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of 

each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. Any amended complaint which plaintiffs may elect 

to file must also include concise but complete factual allegations describing the conduct and 

events which underlie plaintiffs’ claims.

////

////

1

In the future, if plaintiffs’ intention is to state something categorically did not happen or is 

untrue plaintiffs should clearly and unambiguously state as much. 

Case 2:18-cv-00608-TLN-DB Document 53 Filed 03/11/20 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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The January 21, 2020 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 48) are vacated;

2. Defendants’ March 8, 2019 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 36) is denied without 

prejudice as having been rendered moot;

3. The second amended complaint filed on February 22, 2019 (ECF No. 32) is dismissed 

with leave to amend;

4. Within twenty-eight days from the date of this order, a third amended complaint shall 

be filed that cures the defects noted in the January 21, 2020 findings and recommendations and 

this order, and complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of 

Practice.2 The third amended complaint shall not exceed 25 pages, must bear the case number 

assigned to this action, and must be titled “Third Amended Complaint”; and

5. Plaintiffs are cautioned that the failure to comply with this order in a timely manner 

may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: March 10, 2020

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/ponthieux0608.vac.lta

2 Alternatively, if plaintiffs no longer wish to pursue this action plaintiffs may file a notice of 

voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:18-cv-00608-TLN-DB Document 53 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 3