Th is C ourt a do pts the de fe nd ants ’ a ssumpt ion that th e “ Ni c e Of

fe r a nd De mand s” is 1 Poblete’s complaint. LUIS IVAN P OBLE TE,

P la in t if f,
v. L. DARREN G OLDBE RG , et al.,

Defendan ts. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Ci vi l A cti on 09 -01 74 2 (H HK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff Luis I van Poblete commenc ed this action ag ainst L . Dar ren G oldberg , J ames E. Clarke, Rene e Dy son, Ocwe n L oan Servic ing ( “Oc wen” ), Amer ica’ s ServicingCompany , and U.S. Ba nk National Association by filing a nd servinga docume nt titl ed “N ice Of fer and De mand s” (“ c omp la int ” ). I t a pp e ars that th is a c tio n c on c e rn s r e a l pr op e rt ie s o wn e d b y Pob le te 1 and that the individual def endants have bee n appointed substitute trustee(s) in forec losure pr oc e e din g s in

wh ic h Po ble te is a

pp are ntl y inv olv e d. B e fo re the Court are thr e e mot ion s to dismiss filed by

Ocwe n, Americ a’s Ser

vicingCompany

and U.S. B ank N.A., a

nd the individual defe ndants, respe ctively

[## 3, 7, 11]
. A f t e r e a c hm o t i o nt o d i s m i s s w a s f i l e d , th e C o urto r d e r e d

th atP o b l e t e r e s p o n d

t o i tb y a p art i c u l ar d at e . A s r e qu i r e d

b y Fox v . Strickland , 837 F.2d 507 ( D.C. Cir. 1988), the Court
war ned Poblete that fa ilure to respond to the de fenda nts’ motions could result in the Court g rantingthe motions as conce ded and dismissing the case .2

L oc a l Civ il Ru le 7( b) pr ov ide s: With in 1 1 d ay s o f t

he date of se rv ic e or

at su c h o the r t ime a s th e Court may dir e c t, an o pp os ingpa

rt y sh a ll s e rv e and

fi le a me mor and

um o f p oints a

nd a uth or iti e s in opposition t o the motion. I f such a memorandum is not filed within the presc ribed time, the Court may

treat the motion as conce ded. L CvR 7(b). A district court may g rant a motion to di smiss as concede d based on the absenc e of a response . See Fox v . Am. Airlines, Inc. , 389 F.3d 1291, 1295 ( D.C. Cir. 2004) (af firmingdistrict court’s grant of motion to dismiss as conc eded due to plaintiff’s fa ilure to file a r esponse) . The deadlines the Court set for Poblete’s r esponse have now pa ssed. Poblete has not filed a n op po sit ion

a dd re ssi ngthe de fe nd ants ’ a

rgume nts fo r d ism iss a l. N or ha s h e so ug ht a dd iti on a l ti me to do so. There fore , pursuant to L CvR 7(b), these unopposed motions are deeme d conce ded. The Court fur

ther obser ves that the de fenda

nts’ motions present sound justifications for dis mis sa l. I

n p art ic ula

r, the Court

a g re e s w ithOc we n’ s c on te nti on that Po ble te ’s c omp la int

fa ils to meet the plea ding r equire ment of F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 8( a). Rule 8(a) require s that a complaint conta in (1) “a short and plain stateme nt of the g rounds for the c ourt’s jurisdiction,” (2) “a shor t and plain statement of the claim showingthat the pleade r is entitled to relief,” and (3) “a de mand for the relief soug ht.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 8(a) . This minim al standard se rves to g ive fa ir notice to def endants of the claim or c laims being asser ted such that defe ndants are able to file a responsive a

nswer, pr epar e an a dequate defe nse, and de termine whether the doctrine of re

s ju dic ata applies. Brown v. Califano , 7 5 F .R. D. 49 7, 49 8 ( D. D. C. 1977). Pleadingdefic iencies that warr ant dismissal include (1) “ confuse d and ra mbling nar

rative of cha rg es and c onclusions,” (2) “ untidy assortment of c laims that are ne ither plainly nor concise ly stated, nor mea

ningf ully distinguished fr om bold conclusions, sharp har angues and3

persona l comments,” and ( 3) fa iling to alleg e “w ith even modest par ticularity the dates a

nd place s of the a lleg ed tra

nsactions.” Id. at 499. Poblete’s complaint does not satisfy the pleadingrules. The caption of the document
re a ds : N I CE OF F E R AND DE M ANDS N O TICE TO PR INCIPA LS I S NO TICE TO AG EN TS A ND NO TICE TO AG EN TS I S NO TICE TO PR INCIPA LS T HI S I S L AWFUL NOT

I CE T O CL AI M AN T T HAT UNT I L CLAI M AN T HAS VAL I DAT ED AS S T I PUL AT ED AN D PRODUCED AS

S T I PUL AT ED , T HE INFO RM

ATIO N A ND D O CU

M EN TATIO N D EM

AN D ED H ER EIN CLAI M ANT M U ST CEA SE ANY

AND ALL FORECLO SURE A ND / OR C OLLEC TI

ON ACT I V I TI ES I MM EDI AT EL Y . C OM E S NOW , Affia

nt, one of the pe ople of Missouri, the Sovere ign spoke n of in Y ic k Wo vs . H op kin s, in a sp e c ia l a pp e ara nc e on ly to p re se nt t o Cl a ima

nt t his “nice offe r and de mands” a nd lawful leg al notice( s) pursuant to (but not limited to) the Constitut ion for the United States, the Uniform Commercia l Code (UCC) 3- 601, 3-602, 3-603, 3- 604, 3-605, the F air De bt Coll ections Prac tices Ac t (FD CPA) 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, 1692 et seq, and applica ble law. Pursuant to the f eder al Constit ution, specifica lly , the B ill of Rights, in particular , the Fir st, Fourth, F ifth, Sixth, Se ve nth , N int

h a nd Te nth Am e ndme nts , a

nd re qu ir e s your wri tte n r e sp on se or re butta l ( po int

by po int ) t o A ff

iant, sp e c if

ic to t he su bje c t matte r w ith in 3 0 d ay s. F a ilure to r e sp on d, a s st ipu late d, and re but th at w ithwh ic h you dis a g re e , in writing , with particular ity , to Affiant, within 30 day s of the date this Nice Off er And Dema

nds was re ceive d by

Claimant, and support Claimant’s disag ree ment wi th f a c t, e vid e nc e and

Con sti tut ion a lly

ba se d la w, c on sti tut e s Cl a ima

nt’ s f ull ag ree ment with Affiant’ s alleg ations and cla ims. “Y our silence is your ac quiesce nce”. See : Connally v. Ge neral Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notifi cation of legal responsibili ty is “the firs t essential of due process of law”. See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297. “Silencecan only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inq uir yle ft u na ns we re d wo uld

beinte nti on all

ymi sle ad ing ”. Compl. at 2. This openingis just a brief example of the nonse nsical conte nts of the document. The 29- pa g e “ Ni c e Of

fe r a nd De mand s” c on sis ts o f a

n a sso rtme nt o f i te ms i nc lud ingsw or n s tate me nts , reque sts for produc tion of orig inal documents, inquiries that ar e akin to interr og atories, a ndFor example, the first true/fa lse question rea ds “TRUE| FAL SE - ‘money ’ is an asse t and 2 an asse t is ‘money ’ or at least the equiva lent of ‘money ’, and that Fede ral Rese rve N otes are assets, and ‘ chec kbook money ’ or ‘ demand de posits’ are liabilities of a f inancial institution and there fore the opposite of money .” Compl. at 23. Another r eads “ TRUE| FAL SE - Affia nt states that copy of a thingcannot be the thing, no matter how c lever ly it is worded or stated.” Id. at 23–24. Poblete also cites fr om various statues and othe r publications, for instanc e, one r eads “TRUE| FAL SE - ‘[n] o bank eve r lends its deposits’ Money and Banking by Profe

ssor David R. Kamersche n, 9 Edition, page 164. ” Id. at 26. th
4 se e min g ly

ir re le va nt t ru e /f a lse qu e sti on s. I t a lso c on ta ins a c oll e c tio n o f d e fi nit ion s o f w or ds , 2 including “ and” a

nd “date ”; Poblete’s def

inition of “document” or

“docume nts” takes up more than one pa g e. Compl. at 6–7. Poblete cites var ious sections of the U.S. Constitut ion, the Uniform Commercia l Code, and state a nd fede ral statutes without explaining why they are rele vant to his claims. The lac k of both fac tual alleg ations and cohe sive arguments rende rs the complaint incomprehe nsible. The docume nt lacks esse ntial elements such a s a desc ription of the alleg ed tra

nsactions, identifications of parties involved, and the dates a nd place s of key

events. Th e re fo re , th e c omp la int

do e s n ot a ssi st the de fe nd ants in a sc e rt a ini ngthe natur e and sc op e of thi s
a c tio n b e y on d th e po ssi ble c on c lus ion , f ro m th e op e nin gte xt quo te d a bo ve and oth e r r e fe re nc e s to debt scattered throughout the document, that Poblete is disputing some nonspec ified debt a nd/or fore closure w ith the “Claimant,” his purported oppone nt. Consequently , defe ndants did not
re c e ive fa ir

no tic e of the c la im o r c la ims a sse rt e d a g a ins t th e m and c ann ot p re pa

re a de qu ate
answe rs or de fense s. “It belabors the obvious to conc lude that the complaint filed in this action falls fa r short of the a dmittedly

liberal standa

rd set in [Rul e] 8(a).” Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 499. For the fore g oing r easons, Poblete’ s complaint shall be dismissed. An appropr iate orde r
acc ompanies this memorandum. Henr y H. Kenne dy , J r. Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge