Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01468/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01468-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON FAUNTLEROY and CHANTAINE T.

FAUNTLEROY,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 10-01468 MHP

ORDER RE FILING

OF COMPLAINT

AND OTHER

DOCUMENTS

Plaintiffs filed a complaint with this court on April 7, 2010, alleging claims under the Truth

in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1601et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.

section 1692 et seq., and California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The document,

filed as a complaint, is sixty-four pages long, the first three pages being the only ones that resemble

a complaint, albeit deficient, and the rest of the pages consisting of a conglomeration of papers,

memoranda, lists of cases, documents prepared by plaintiffs and numerous other pieces of paper the

relevance of which is unclear.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which govern the federal courts and the proceedings

before them provide in section 8(a) that the complaint shall contain “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiffs’ complaint is

anything but a short and plain statement of the claim. It meanders on for sixty-four pages from

which it is not possible to glean any facts or basis for relief. In the first three pages, which are the

only ones that are succinct, it fails to identify the property at issue, the dates of the transactions

involved and other crucial information about the transactions. The remaining pages are essentially a

Case 3:10-cv-01468-MHP Document 13 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

raft of accusations; documents created by plaintiffs; quotes from cases, writings of various types and

the internet; and miscellaneous ramblings.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that in order for a complaint to pass muster it “must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face’”. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___U.S.___, 129 S.Ct.1937, 1949 (2009)(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To be plausible the complaint must allege the quality and

quantity of facts that permits the court to “draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

the misconduct alleged”. Id. Mere recitation of the elements of a claim or legal conclusions will not

suffice. 

The complaint in this case satisfies neither Rule 8(a) or the Iqbal-Twombly requirements. 

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on these and other grounds. In the

meantime plaintiffs have filed another “complaint” which is even more verbose and more than twice

as long as the first.1

 This would, of course, ordinarily be an amended complaint and since no

responsive pleading has been filed, a plaintiff may amend once as a matter of course. Fed. R.Civ.P.

15(a)(1). However, the court declines to accept the filing of this pleading. It will be lodged with

the court. This new complaint fails all the requirements of Rule 8(a), Iqbal and Twombly. 

Defendants should not have to respond to a document this voluminous and incomprehensible and no

court should have to wade through such a morass. 

Plaintiffs’ date for filing an opposition to defendants’ motion, which reaches the merits of the

case, is June 7, 2010. The court is giving fair warning to plaintiffs that their opposition may not

exceed 25 pages as required by the Civil Local Rules of this District, Civil.L.R.7-3(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 24, 2010

 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:10-cv-01468-MHP Document 13 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1. Even plaintiff gave up numbering the pages after number 129. 

ENDNOTES

Case 3:10-cv-01468-MHP Document 13 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 3