UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -- EASTERN DIVISION
April 21, 2011
MARCELINO RAMIREZ, PLAINTIFF,
AURORA LOAN SERVICES; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF'S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFF'S TITLE THERETO; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Judge Manuel L. Real
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC 'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Hearing Date: Date: April 11, 2011 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm: 8 Complaint Filed: January 3, 2011 Trial Date: None
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
The motion of defendant Aurora Loan Services LLC (Aurora) to dismiss plaintiff Marcelino Ramirez's (plaintiff) complaint, came on before Judge Manuel L. Real on April 11, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. There was no appearance by or on behalf of plaintiff.
After having read and considered the papers in support of and in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, as well as all of the Court's files and papers, the Court finds that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Therefore, defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. In particular, the Court finds as follows:
Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal because he does not bring any allegations at all against Aurora pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal because plaintiff has not tendered the amount due under the loan.
The complaint fails to show a right to relief by lacking a cognizable legal theory and by lacking sufficient facts alleged under cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) Good cause appearing, defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint is GRANTED with prejudice.
Judge Manuel L. Real
PROOF OF SERVICE BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY COURIER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My business address is 725 South Figueroa Street, 38th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
On April 12, 2011, I served the following document(s) described as:
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS AURORA LOAN SERVICES AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
: by enclosing the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses as stated below:
Plaintiff in Pro Per Marcelino Ramirez 18539 11th Street Bloomington, California 92316 I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses as indicated above and:
: BY FEDERAL EXPRESS*
. BY EXPRESS MAIL (USPS)*
. BY *
I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. : (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the above is true and correct.
Executed on February 23, 2011, at Los Angeles, California.
Sheila Matthias Type Name Signature
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.