Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00099/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00099-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rumi Salazar, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Lehman Brothers Bank; Faslo Solutions;

Camelback Title; MERS; Aurora Loan

Services; and Quality Loan Service

Corp., AZ, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-99-PHX-DGC

ORDER

This action arises from a trustee’s sale of real property located in Litchfield Park,

Arizona. Plaintiff Rumi Salazar filed a complaint against Defendants on January 19, 2010,

asserting claims for violation of federal due process rights, deprivation of rights under

cognovit note, and deprivation of rights due to unconscionability and adhesion contracts.

Doc. 1. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 8)

and denied as moot a motion to dismiss the original complaint (Doc. 5). Doc. 11. The

amended complaint purports to assert ten claims against Defendants. Doc. 13.

On June 30, 2010, Defendants Lehman Brothers Bank, Aurora Loan Services, and

Quality Loan Service Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for

failure to state a claim to relief. Doc. 16. Plaintiff has filed no response, and the time for

doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Plaintiff shall have until

August 6, 2010 to file a response to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 16). Plaintiff is again

advised (see Docs. 6, 11) that even though he is proceeding pro se, he is still required follow

Case 2:10-cv-00099-DGC Document 17 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 2
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 -

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

It does not appear from the case docket that Plaintiff has, as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, served process on Defendants Faslo Solutions, Camelback

Title, and MERS. Rule 4(m) provides that service of process must be made within 120 days

after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 19,

2010. Doc. 1. The service deadline, therefore, was May 19, 2010. The Court previously

warned Plaintiff that if he fails to prosecute this action, the Court may dismiss the action with

prejudice. Docs. 6, 11. Plaintiff shall, by August 6, 2010, show cause why Defendants

Faslo Solutions, Camelback Title, and MERS should not be dismissed for lack of service.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff shall have until August 6, 2010 to file a response to Defendants’

motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 16). Plaintiff is warned that

the Court will summarily grant the motion to dismiss if Plaintiff fails to

comply with this order. See LRCiv 7.2(i); Doc. 6 at 2.

2. Plaintiff shall, by August 6, 2010, show cause why Defendants Faslo

Solutions, Camelback Title, and MERS should not be dismissed for lack of

service of process by Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

3. Defendants’ erroneously filed motion to dismiss the original complaint

(Doc. 14) is denied.

4. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at the following

addresses: (1) P.O. Box 11054, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85271; and (2) 18017

West Montebello Avenue, Litchfield Park, Arizona, 85340.

DATED this 26th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00099-DGC Document 17 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2