Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01434/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01434-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1640 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWN C. MILLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv1434-LAB (JMA)

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS

AGAINST DEFENDANT BANK OF

AMERICA; AND 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et

al.,

Defendants.

After Plaintiff Shawn Miller failed to oppose Bank of America’s motion to dismiss, the

Court vacated the hearing and ordered Miller to show cause why the motion should not be

granted. Specifically, the Court ordered Miller to explain why he did not timely oppose the

motion, and to show cause why claims against Bank of America should not be dismissed. 

(Docket no. 6 at 1:23–25.) Miller was also ordered to attach a copy of his proposed

opposition to the motion to his response. (Id., 1:25–26.)

Miller did not attempt to explain his failure to oppose the motion to dismiss nor did he

offer any opposition to the motion. Instead, he filed a response asking for leave to amend

his complaint and citing authority for the principle that leave to amend should be granted

freely. (Docket no. 7.) The Court construes this action as Miller’s admission that his

complaint failed to state a claim against Bank of America, and a request for leave to amend.

- 1 - 16cv1434

Case 3:16-cv-01434-LAB-JMA Document 9 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

In light of this, Bank of America’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART. All claims

against Bank of America are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Miller also filed a noticed motion for leave to amend his complaint. (Docket no. 8.) 

The motion does not comply with Civil Local Rule 15.1(b), however. As a result, the Court

and the Defendants would be saddled with the task of comparing the original complaint with

the proposed amended one, both of which are 23 pages long and in a format that prevents

use of word processing software to run a redline comparison of the two documents.

Furthermore, the proposed amended complaint is deficient. For example, it includes

outdated allegations. (See, e.g., Docket no. 8-3 (proposed amended complaint), ¶ 7

(alleging a trustee sale scheduled for June 10, 2016), ¶¶ 27–28 (alleging that the trustee’s

sale had already taken place), and Prayer for Relief, ¶ 1 (asking the Court to enjoin the June

10, 2016 foreclosure sale).) It incorrectly claims that all Defendants are corporations with

multiple offices located in San Diego County, and identifies them all as servicers of Miller’s

loan. (Id., ¶ 12.) 

The proposed amended complaint would add two Defendants, Brian Richard dba

Richard Realty, and Ilene Anne Radszuweit. These Defendants are not identified, however,

and their roles are not explained; the proposed amended complaint for the most part refers

to Defendants collectively, without including specific allegations regarding who each

Defendant is and what each Defendant did. Rather, it says that all Defendants were each

other’s agents and employees for all purposes, without alleging facts to support this

conclusion. (Id., ¶14.) See, e.g., Mindlab Media, LLC v. LWRC Int’l, LLC, 2012 WL 386695,

at *4 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2012) (holding that similar allegations were conclusory and

insufficient to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8's pleading standard); Calugay v. GMAC Mortg., 2009

WL 3872356 (D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2009) (same). It fails to address defects the two motions to

dismiss have pointed out, such as the apparent running of the statute of limitations. Although

the motion says Miller seeks to quiet title to the property, the proposed amended complaint

does not mention it. There are other defects as well.

/ / /

- 2 - 16cv1434

Case 3:16-cv-01434-LAB-JMA Document 9 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> 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

In light of the defects in Miller’s motion, it is summarily DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. Miller may, if he wishes, renew his motion no later than Monday, September

5, 2016. If he does so, he should file an ex parte request for leave to amend, rather than a

noticed motion, and should attach his proposed amended complaint as an exhibit, and a

copy showing changes as required by Civil Local Rule 15.1(b) as a second exhibit. 

Defendants’ oppositions, if any, should be filed by September 15, 2016.

Miller offered no opposition to Bank of America’s motion to dismiss, and has sought

leave to amend rather than oppose MTC Financial, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. The Court

construes this to mean that Miller concedes both motions’ merit. He should therefore take

care that any proposed amended complaint should remedy the defects that these motions

or the Court have pointed out to him. If he fails to correct defects he knows about, the Court

will assume he cannot do so. See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d

1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting district court’s broad discretion to dismiss without leave

to amend, where previous amendments failed to remedy pleading defects the plaintiff knew

about).

MTC Financial’s motion to dismiss remains pending, but will be denied as moot if

Miller is granted leave to amend. In the meantime, briefing deadlines remain in place.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 18, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv1434

Case 3:16-cv-01434-LAB-JMA Document 9 Filed 08/18/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3