Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05575/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05575-1/pdf.json

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEL JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BANK OF AMERICA FKA et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-05575 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

In this mortgage case, Plaintiff has brought suit against Bank of America FKA

Countrywide Home Loans, AEGIS Wholesale Corporation, Commonwealth Land Title,

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Twin Capital Mortgage, and Darius John

Mirshanzaden (an individual and presumably an employee of Twin Capital). He alleges

causes of action for: (1) violation of TILA; (2) violation of the California Rosenthal Act, Cal.

Civil Code §§ 1788; (3) negligence; (4) violation of RESPA; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6)

fraud; (7) violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200; (8) breach of

contract; (9) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (10) wrongful

foreclosure. 

Two defendants, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., have brought a motion to dismiss all causes of action against

them. Plaintiff failed to file an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to either motion,

in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3. Plaintiff’s failure to do so is particularly egregious in

Case 3:09-cv-05575-CRB Document 25 Filed 03/26/10 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

G:\CRBALL\2009\5575\order granting motions to dismiss -- countrywide and MERS.wpd 2

this case because the Court had previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against two other

defendants on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to respond to those defendants’ motions to

dismiss. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, February 5, 2010. The Court’s Order

dismissing those claims was filed five days before the Defendants filed the motion now

pending before this Court. In other words, Plaintiff had ample notice that a failure to oppose

or otherwise respond to the motion to dismiss now pending before the Court would result in

dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Countrywide and MERS. Plaintiff nonetheless failed

to respond. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05575-CRB Document 25 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 2