Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01211/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01211-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

BRIAN K. BREWER and SUZANNE L.

BREWER,

No. 2:08-CV-01211-FCD-DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

INDYMAC BANK, RESIDENTIAL

MORTGAGE CAPITAL, JAMES

CHAPMAN,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

 On May 30, 2008, plaintiffs Brian K. Brewer and Suzanne L.

Brewer (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for damages

and injunctive relief (the “complaint”) against defendants

Indymac Bank, Residential Mortgage Capital (“RMC”), and James

Chapman (“Chapman”). On June 16, 2008, defendants RMC and

Chapman (collectively, “defendants”) filed (1) a motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s complaint or, in the alternative, for a more

definite statement; (2) a motion to strike; and (3) a motion for

summary judgment or, in the alternative, for summary

adjudication. Plaintiffs oppose defendants’ motions.

 

Case 2:08-cv-01211-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 08/14/08 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

27

28

1 Although the court does not entertain defendants’

motion to dismiss on the merits, it nevertheless advises

defendants that in ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the court may

consider only the complaint, any exhibits thereto, and matters

which may be judicially noticed pursuant to Federal Rule of

Evidence 201. See Mir v. Little Co. Of Mary Hospital, 844 F.2d

646, 649 (9th Cir. 1988); Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of

United States, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1042 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 

The court also notes that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(f) and relevant case law, “a party must have an

adequate opportunity to develop his claims through discovery

before summary judgment is appropriate.” Redmond v. Burlington

Northern R.R. Co. Pension Plan, 821 F.2d 461, 469 (8th Cir.

1987); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326

(1986) (“Any potential problems with premature motions can be

adequately dealt with under Rule 56(f), which allows a summary

judgment motion to be denied, or the hearing on the motion to be

continued, if the nonmoving party has not had an opportunity to

make full discovery.”).

Plaintiffs are also directed to consult with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules to ensure that

future filings in this court are both cogent and in compliance

with all applicable rules. (See e.g., Minute Order [Docket #

20], filed Aug. 11, 2008)

2

Because the court concludes that the complaint lacks the

necessary information to place defendants on proper notice and to

give them adequate ability to respond as required by Rule 8(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it does not reach the

merits of defendants’ pending motions.1 While the complaint is

fraught with conclusory statements of the law and sweeping

allegations of “despicable,” “arrogant,” and “vile” misconduct,

it lacks the necessary information to render the complaint a

“short and plain statement of the claim[s]” required by Rule 8(a)

and falls short of meeting Rule 8(e)’s requirement that each

allegation in the complaint “be simple, concise, and direct.” 

Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings

straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties

need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.

Federal judges have better things to do, and the

substantial subsidy of litigation (court costs do not

Case 2:08-cv-01211-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 08/14/08 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

27

28

3

begin to cover the expense of the judiciary) should be

targeted on those litigants who take the preliminary

steps to assemble a comprehensible claim.

U.S. ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378

(7th Cir. 2003). 

In this case, the court is troubled by the lack of

completeness and coherent organization of the factual allegations

in the complaint. Nowhere is there a clear recitation of

plaintiffs’ interactions with each defendant or each defendant’s

role with respect to the conduct at issue. Rather, the

allegations in the complaint alternate between referring to

plaintiff and plaintiffs, making it unclear which plaintiff was

subject to the conduct or whether both plaintiffs were subject to

the conduct. Plaintiffs often refer to defendants collectively

without identifying the conduct of each defendant that gave rise

to the specific claim for relief. The complaint also makes

allusions to concepts and events that are not explained. For

example, plaintiffs allege that defendant RMC brokers loans to

various lenders using “table funding.” (Compl., filed May 30,

2008, ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs fail to explain the conduct that term is

meant to describe. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants’

conduct caused their monthly payments to increase with the “net

effect” of taking plaintiffs “from a settled family living the

American dream to losing their home, all in that one month.” 

(Compl. ¶ 131.) However, plaintiffs do not explain what

allegedly wrongful conduct of defendants caused the increase in

payments that led to this “net effect.” Further, the impetus of

this suit appears to be the Payment Option ARM loan that

plaintiffs took out from one or more defendants. Plaintiffs,

Case 2:08-cv-01211-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 08/14/08 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

27

28

4

though, fail to set forth the terms of the loan or explain how

such terms harmed them. The complaint is rife with similarly

vague and incomplete allegations. As such, the complaint does

not provide defendants with “fair notice” of the nature of the

claims or the “grounds” on which the claims rest. See Bell

Atlantic, 127 S.Ct. at 1964-65 (“A plaintiff’s obligation to

provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires

more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of

the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .”).

Moreover, the clarity of the complaint is obfuscated by

plaintiffs’ characterization’s of defendants’ conduct. For

example, plaintiffs allege

Defendants are acting in a despicable manner by such

scheme and have displayed gross arrogance and contempt

toward consumers who attempt to exercise their lawful

rights. The complexity of such activity is so vile and

so deceptive, it would make “Houdini” proud and

reminiscent of the Abbott and Costello routine, “who is

on first.”

(Compl., filed May 30, 2008, ¶ 130; see also id. ¶¶ 148; 158;

161). While such allegations may correctly capture plaintiffs’

feelings about defendants’ conduct, they fail to provide any

assistance in setting forth the factual basis for their claims. 

Plaintiffs’ complaint also dedicates numerous allegations to pure

statements of law. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 16-19; 38-41; 56-57;

66-75; 102). Such argument relating to the state of the law is

inappropriately made in a complaint and hinders the requirement

of setting forth a “short and plain statement of the claim.” 

Finally, the allegations in the complaint refer to attached

exhibits, none of which are legible.

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01211-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 08/14/08 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

27

28

5

To permit plaintiffs to proceed on the submitted complaint

would seriously undermine the goal of Rule 8 in encouraging the

fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. Therefore, for the

foregoing reasons, the court makes the following orders: 

 (1) Plaintiffs shall file and serve a first amended

complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this

order, which complies with Rule 8. 

(2) Defendants shall file their responses to the first

amended complaint within 30 days of service thereof.

(3) Defendants’ pending motions are VACATED as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 13, 2008

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01211-FCD-DAD Document 21 Filed 08/14/08 Page 5 of 5