Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00053/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00053-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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 - 10cv53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO Y. PELINA, et al.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV53 DMS (NLS)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

vs.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiffs Armando Y. Pelina and Maria D. Pelina filed suit on January8, 2010, alleging eleven

claims for relief, including violation of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and violation of the Real

Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). (Doc. 1.) On February 9, 2010, Defendants Pavia

Financial Services, Inc. and Anthony Scott Pavia filed Answers to the Complaint. (Docs. 3 & 4.) On

February 25, 2010, Defendant Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation filed a Declaration of NonMonetary Status, to which Plaintiffs objected. (Docs. 6 & 8.) On March 11, 2010, Defendants

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) and Ocwen Loan Servicing filed a motion

to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 10.) On March 16, 2010,

Defendant American Mortgage Express Financial dba Millennium Funding Group (“AMEF”) filed

a motion to dismiss, as well as a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f). (Docs. 12 & 13.) Defendant

James Sanford has not appeared in the action.

On February 25, 2010, prior to the motions to dismiss, the Court held an informal conference

Case 3:10-cv-00053-DMS-NLS Document 18 Filed 04/07/10 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

 On April 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 17.) The time for 1

amending the complaint without leave of court has passed. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a). Accordingly, the

Court strikes Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs are cautioned, however, that the Court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the 2

Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.

- 2 - 10cv53

with counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants MERS, Ocwen and AMEF. Plaintiffs indicated their intent

to voluntarily dismiss the action and file the claim in state court. Plaintiffs were ordered to file a

motion to dismiss by March 4, 2010. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiffs failed to file the motion, and subsequently

Defendants filed the Rule 12(b) motions.

The hearing on the 12(b) motions is currentlyscheduled for April 16, 2010. Plaintiffs therefore

had to file an opposition by April 2, 2010. On April 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed notices of non-opposition

to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Docs. 15 & 16.) Plaintiffs’ non-opposition relates only to the

TILA and RESPA claims. However, Plaintiffs also request the Court dismiss all claims against all

Defendants without prejudice, or, alternatively, that Plaintiffs be granted leave to amend the complaint.

Concurrently with the notices of non-opposition, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a First

Amended Complaint, which is scheduled for hearing on May 14, 2010. (Doc. 14.) 1

Because Plaintiffs do not oppose the motions to dismiss, the Court hereby grants the motions.

The Court further grants Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss all claims against all Defendants. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. The motion for leave to amend is

denied as moot. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of the date this

Order is filed.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 7, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00053-DMS-NLS Document 18 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 2