Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01468/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01468-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON FAUNTLEROY JR., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-1468 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

On April 7, 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint with this court alleging claims under the Truth

in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1601 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.

section 1692 et seq., and California Business and Professions Code section 17200.

On April 29, 2010, all defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a

claim. Docket No. 4 (Motion). On May 20, 2010, plaintiffs attempted to file an amended complaint. 

See Docket Sheet. On May 25, 2010, the court stated:

The complaint in this case satisfies neither Rule 8(a) or the Iqbal-Twombly

requirements. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on these and

other grounds. In the meantime plaintiffs have filed another ‘complaint’ which is

even more verbose and more than twice as long as the first. This would, of course,

ordinarily be an amended complaint and since no responsive pleading has been filed,

a plaintiff may amend once as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). However,

the court declines to accept the filing of this pleading. It will be lodged with the

court. This new complaint fails all the requirements of Rule 8(a), Iqbal and Twombly. Defendants should not have to respond to a document this voluminous and

incomprehensible and no court should have to wade through such a morass.

Docket No. 13 (Order) at 2. The court specifically stated that “Plaintiffs’ date for filing an

opposition to defendants’ motion, which reaches the merits of the case, is June 7, 2010.” Id.

Plaintiffs failed to oppose the motion to dismiss. Docket No. 17 (Notice).

Case 3:10-cv-01468-MHP Document 18 Filed 06/22/10 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

The absence of any opposition is a concession that defendants’ arguments are meritorious. 

Offril v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc., No. C 08-5050 PJH, 2009 WL 69344, at *1, *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9,

2009) (Hamilton, J.) (granting unopposed motion to dismiss without leave to amend); Freeman for

Thomas v. Ellen, No. C 98-0445 MMC, 1998 WL 164948, *1, *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 1998)

(Chesney, J.) (granting unopposed motion to dismiss without leave to amend); Stewart v. City and

County of San Francisco, No. C 08-5434 SBA, 2009 WL 1331101, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. May 13,

2009) (Armstrong, J.) (granting unopposed motion for judgment on the pleading with prejudice);

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming order granting motion

to dismiss where plaintiff failed to respond to motion).

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED

in its entirety.

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:10-cv-01468-MHP Document 18 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 2