Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02059/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02059-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO VICTORIA,

NO. CIV. S-09-2059 LKK/KJM

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK;

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK; O R D E R

and DOES 1 through 100,

inclusive.

Defendants.

 /

On March 10, 2010, this court issued an order to show cause

to plaintiff’s counsel for his (a) failure to file a response to

this court’s February 22, 2010 order to show cause, (b) failure to

timely file an amended complaint, and (3) failure to file a status

report prior to the previously scheduled March 15, 2010 status

conference. Also in this order, the court sanctioned plaintiff’s

counsel $150 for his failure to file a status report for the

previously scheduled February 22, 2010 status conference.

Case 2:09-cv-02059-KJM-CKD Document 26 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 5
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

 The court notes that counsel for both parties are located 1

out of Sacramento, and may, if they choose, appear telephonically

for the conference. If both parties choose to do so, they will have

to set up a conference call, and then call the court from one line.

2

On March 15, 2010, plaintiff’s counsel timely filed an

affidavit in response to the order to show cause. In this response,

plaintiff’s counsel indicates that he missed these deadlines due

to a chronic and recurrent respiratory illness. In light of this

information, the court concludes that neither dismissal nor

referral to the bar is an appropriate sanction for plaintiff’s late

filings. Accordingly, the court finds no sanction is appropriate.

Also on March 15, 2010, plaintiff filed a status report and

his sanction of $150. Plaintiff has not yet, however, filed an

affidavit stating that the sanction is paid personally by counsel,

out of personal funds, and is not and will not be billed, directly

or indirectly, to the client or in any way made the responsibility

of the client as attorneys’ fees or costs. 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavit contained several

misunderstandings of the procedural posture of this case, which the

court here addresses. First, the status report plaintiff filed in

anticipation of a status conference is pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

16, not Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). After this conference, the court

will issue a scheduling order, which sets for the timing of

discovery. Parties are not required to meet and confer before this

Rule 16 conference.1

Second, plaintiff misstates which of his claims have survived

defendant’s first motion to dismiss. Pursuant to the two orders

Case 2:09-cv-02059-KJM-CKD Document 26 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 5
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

Defendant has filed a reply to this motion indicating that 2

plaintiff’s delay in filing an amended complaint and failing to

provide a substantive opposition to defendant’s motion has

prejudiced defendant. Plaintiff’s actions here, while far from

ideal, have not significantly prejudiced defendant to warrant

dismissal. The court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss

the original complaint on December 29, 2009, and granted plaintiff

20 days to file an amended complaint. On February 18, 2010,

defendant moved to dismiss due to plaintiff’s failure to file an

amended complaint. This case is proceeding on a short delay.

Further, because defendant’s motion lacks merit, as described

above, the court does not address whether plaintiff’s opposition

3

disposing of defendant’s motion to dismiss, Doc. Nos. 11, 16, the

following claims were dismissed without prejudice: fraud,

preliminary injunction, violation of the Truth in Lending Act

(“TILA”) claim for damages arising out of conduct at loan

origination, and violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures

Act (“RESPA”) arising out of conduct at loan origination. The court

noted, and again notes, that under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, plaintiffs must file a motion for a preliminary

injunction. Inclusion of preliminary injunction as a cause of

action in a complaint is not proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

Accordingly, the claims that survived defendant’s motion to dismiss

are the following: violation of TILA for damages arising out of

conduct after September 25, 2008, violation of TILA for rescission,

violation of RESPA arising out of conduct after September 25, 2008,

and violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1632.

Third, defendant’s motion to dismiss assumes that plaintiff’s

failure to timely file an amended complaint after this court’s

December 29, 2009 order entitles it to dismissal of the entire

action. Despite this court’s indication in its March 10, 2010 2

Case 2:09-cv-02059-KJM-CKD Document 26 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 5
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

was sufficiently responsive.

 For example, “First Cause of Action: Violation of the Truth- 3

in-Lending-Act . . . Second Cause of Action: Violation of the Real

Estate Settlement Procedures Act . . . Third Cause of Action:

Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1632 . . . .”

4

order to show cause that the December 29, 2009 order granting

plaintiff leave to amend is not an order that plaintiff must amend

his complaint, plaintiff’s counsel still seems to believe that he

must file an amended complaint in order for the case to proceed.

This is not the case. If plaintiff does not file an amended

complaint, he will proceed on his claims for violation of TILA for

damages arising out of conduct after September 25, 2008, violation

of TILA for rescission, violation of RESPA arising out of conduct

after September 25, 2008, and violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1632.

Nonetheless, because plaintiff appears to want to file an amended

complaint, the court grants plaintiff leave of twenty-one (21) days

to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he

does not plead these claims for which the court has denied

defendant’s motion to dismiss in his amended complaint, they will

be waived. The court further renews its request from the October

2, 2009 order that plaintiff plead separate causes of action for

each statutory or common law claim he intends to bring. Plaintiff 3

may also truthfully amend to cure defects on the claims dismissed

from his amended complaint. Plaintiff, however, is cautioned not

to replead insufficient claims, or to falsely plead. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS:

(1) A status conference is set for April 5, 2010 at 1:30

Case 2:09-cv-02059-KJM-CKD Document 26 Filed 03/18/10 Page 4 of 5
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

5

p.m. Because both parties have now submitted status

reports, no further reports are necessary.

(2) No sanction will issue for plaintiff’s counsel’s (a)

failure to file a response to this court’s February 22,

2010 order to show cause, (b) failure to timely file and

amended complaint, and (3) failure to file a status

report prior to the previously scheduled March 15, 2010

status conference. 

(3) Plaintiff’s counsel shall file within fourteen (14) days

of the issuance of this order that the $150 sanction he

paid on March 15, 2010 was paid personally by counsel,

out of personal funds, and is not and will not be

billed, directly or indirectly, to the client or in any

way made the responsibility of the client as attorneys’

fees or costs.

(4) Plaintiff is granted leave of twenty-one (21) days to

file an amended complaint. 

(5) Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Doc. No. 17, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02059-KJM-CKD Document 26 Filed 03/18/10 Page 5 of 5