The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (Doc. Nos. 4 and 6)
Presently before the court are defendant Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A.'s ("Chase") and defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services's ("First American") respective motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint, or alternatively for a more definite statement. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants the motions to dismiss and denies the motions for more definite statement as moot.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs William and Bonnie Heuslein, proceeding pro se, bring this suit in an apparent attempt to, inter alia, stop a foreclosure pursuant to the deed of trust ("Deed") on their home, located at 9894 Mizpah Lane, Descanso, California, 91916 (the "Property").
Plaintiffs executed a promissory note, dated July 25, 2007, in exchange for a loan they received from Chase. The note was secured by the Deed, which was recorded on August 3, 2007 in the San Diego County Recorder's Office. The deed indicates Plaintiffs' loan obligation was $649,000 and identifies Plaintiffs as the borrower, Chase as the lender, and Southland Title Company as the trustee.
Plaintiffs defaulted on their loan obligation, and First American recorded a notice of default and election to sell under deed of trust with the San Diego County Recorder's Office on March 20, 2009, as instrument number 2009-0139928. In a Substitution of Trustee recorded on April 22, 2009, Chase substituted First American as the new trustee under the deed. Chase assigned the Deed and note to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. in an instrument recorded on May 1, 2009. First American issued and recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale on June 25, 2009.
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on June 15, 2009. (Doc. No. 1.) Chase filed its motion to dismiss the complaint on July 29, 2009. (Doc. No. 4.) First American filed its motion to dismiss the complaint on July 30, 2009. (Doc. No. 6.) Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to either motion. Chase has nevertheless filed a "reply" in support of its motion. (Doc. No. 7.) The Court finds both motions suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1).
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds that it does not comply with Federal Rule of Procedure 8 and that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).*fn1
A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 sets forth the requirements for a pleading:
(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim ...