Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02534/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02534-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICK OSEI, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GMAC MORTGAGE; COUNTRYWIDE HOME 

LOANS; BANK OF AMERICA fka 

Countrywide Home Loans; 

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, 

INC.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; ETS 

SERVICES, LLC; PELLETIER 

FINANCE, INC. dba Delta 

Mortgage and Real Estate; 

JEFFERY ALAN PELLETIER; JEFFERY 

PAUL OLSON; JEFFERY BRYAN 

DELORA; and DOES 1-20 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/

 

Case No. 2:09-CV-02534-JAM-GGH 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ 

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., and 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s (“Defendants’”) 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-02534-JAM -GGH Document 64 Filed 04/23/10 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

 

Motion to Dismiss, (Doc # 30), Plaintiff Patrick Osei’s 

(“Plaintiff’s”) First Amended Complaint for failure to state a 

claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1

Additionally, the Court has taken Judicial Notice of all 

documents requested by Defendants. 

Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Local Rule 

230(c) requires a party responding to a motion to file either an 

opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition, no 

less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed hearing date. 

Local Rule 110 authorizes the Court to impose sanctions for 

“failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules.” 

Therefore, the Court will sanction Plaintiff’s counsel, Randolph 

Cooke, $250.00, unless he shows good cause for his failure to 

comply with the Local Rules. 

Plaintiff filed a late statement of non-opposition to 

dismissing his federal claims, and a late opposition to 

dismissing his state claims, the day before Defendants’ reply 

brief was due. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s late filed 

opposition and statement of non-opposition, and finds the 

amended complaint lacks merit for the reasons stated in the 

1

 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

2 

Case 2:09-cv-02534-JAM -GGH Document 64 Filed 04/23/10 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

Motion to Dismiss. It is clear that allowing Plaintiff the 

opportunity to file a third complaint would be futile. 

ORDER

After carefully considering the papers submitted in this 

matter, it is hereby ordered that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

is GRANTED, WITH PREJUDICE.2 It is further ordered that within 

ten (10) days of this Order Randolph Cooke shall either (1) pay 

sanctions of $250.00 to the Clerk of the Court, or (2) submit a 

statement of good cause explaining his failure to comply with 

Local Rule 230(c). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 22, 2010 

 

2

 Because the Court is granting the motions to dismiss with 

prejudice, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is moot. 

3 

Case 2:09-cv-02534-JAM -GGH Document 64 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 3