Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02534/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02534-3/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’ Pelletier 

Finance, Inc., dba Delta Mortgage & Real Estate, Jeffrey Allen 

Pelletier, Jeffrey Paul Olson, and Jeffrey Bryan Delora’s 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-02534-JAM -GGH Document 63 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

 

(“Defendants’”) Motion to Dismiss,(Doc # 27), the third, eighth 

and ninth claims of 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 

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 opposition to dismissing these 

claims, the day before Defendants’ reply brief was due. The 

Court has considered Plaintiff’s late filed opposition, and 

finds the third, eighth and ninth claims from the amended 

complaint lack merit for the reasons stated in Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss. 

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 63 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

ORDER

After carefully considering the papers submitted in this 

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

the third, eighth and ninth claims is GRANTED, WITH PREJUDICE. 

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 

3 

Case 2:09-cv-02534-JAM -GGH Document 63 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 3