Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02227/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL GRAVES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AURORA LOAN SERVICES; FIRST 

NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA; 

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; 

PREMIER LENDING; LAURA N. 

WELLS; and DOES 1-20 inclusive,

 Defendants. 

______________________________/

 

Case No. 2:09-CV-02227-JAM-DAD

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Mortgage 

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff Michael Graves’ (“Plaintiff”) First Amended 

Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not file a timely 

1 

Case 2:09-cv-02227-JAM-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/25/10 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

 

opposition to this motion.1 After carefully considering the 

papers submitted in this matter, it is hereby ordered that the 

Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.2 Plaintiff shall file and serve his Second Amended 

Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2010 

1

 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), the deadline for Plaintiff 

to file his Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was 

November 25, 2009. On December 2, 2009, Defendant filed a Notice 

of Non-Opposition. (Doc. # 19.) On December 7, 2009, Plaintiff 

filed his Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 

21.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not file an application for late 

filing, nor give any explanation for the late filing. Since no 

oral argument was needed in this case, the sanctions for late 

filing were not imposed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Plaintiff’s 

counsel is advised that monetary and/or other appropriate 

sanctions will be imposed should she fail again to comply with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s local 

rules concerning the timely filing of motion papers.

2

 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision 

without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

2 

Case 2:09-cv-02227-JAM-DAD Document 23 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2