Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01926/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01926-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE AMAYA AND MARIA ELENA

MONTANO

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, F/K/A GMAC

MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-01926 WHA

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have filed claims in this action relating to a mortgage loan

that they obtained. Defendant GMAC filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs did not file a

timely opposition. Plaintiffs were ordered to show cause for their failure to respond or

alternatively to file a statement of nonopposition to the motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs have now filed a response stating that because they have a limited

understanding of English, they are being assisted in this action by their “next best friend” John

Wilson. Plaintiffs state that they did not respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss because

defendant reneged on an oral promise by its counsel to Mr. Wilson to copy him on all pleadings

and papers. They state that without Mr. Wilson’s assistance, they did not understand the due

date for their opposition to defendant’s motion (Br. at 3–4). Mr. Wilson has submitted a sworn

declaration that such an oral promise was made (Wilson Decl. at 8–9). Defendant has also

submitted a sworn declaration from its counsel denying that it agreed to provide pleadings or

documents to him on a continuing basis (Beckmann Decl. at 2).

Case 3:10-cv-01926-WHA Document 13 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Because plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, they will be given another chance to file an

opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ opposition shall be due no later than

NOON ON JULY 29, 2010. Defendant’s reply shall be due no later than NOON ON AUGUST 5,

2010. The motion to dismiss shall be decided on the papers. If plaintiffs again fail to file a

timely opposition, this matter will likely be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Mr. Wilson is not an attorney licensed to practice law in California or this Court and

therefore cannot represent plaintiffs. Nor is he a party to this action. Nevertheless, his name

and address are set forth in the upper left-hand corner of the first page of plaintiffs’ submission

with the title “Private Attorney General, United States House of Representatives.” Pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 3-4, this is where the name, address, and other identifying information of

plaintiffs or their counsel should appear. Mr. Wilson is not a member of the United States

House of Representatives. Nor is he a private attorney general for purposes of this lawsuit. It is

improper for his name to appear in the upper left-hand corner of plaintiffs’ submissions or for

him to attempt to represent plaintiffs in this matter.

Defendant is not obligated to serve documents in this matter to Mr. Wilson because he is

neither a party nor an attorney. If plaintiffs require assistance translating the written

submissions in this action, it is their responsibility to seek out help in a timely fashion and meet

all deadlines. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01926-WHA Document 13 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 2