Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title Miguel Villazana v. the Mortgage Store Financial

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 13, 2012

TITLE MIGUEL VILLAZANA
v.
THE MORTGAGE STORE FINANCIAL, INC., ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

CATHERINE JEANG N/A N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers:) ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On April 20, 2012, Miguel Villazana ("plaintiff") filed a complaint against the Mortgage Store Financial Inc., alleging 26 claims under California law including (1) fraud, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) negligence, (4) violations of predatory lending act, (5) violations of the home ownership and equity protection act, (6) violations of truth in lending act, (7) unfair business in practices, (8) concealment, (9) civil conspiracy, (10) cancellation of unconscionable contract, (11) cancellation of deed, (12) reconveyance,

(13) reformation, (14) unjust enrichment, (15) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (16) violations of consumer legal remedies act, (17) accounting, (18) quiet title, (19) injunctive relief, (20) declaratory relief, (21) to set aside trustee sale, (22) to void/cancel trustee's deed, (23) to void/cancel assignment of deed of trust, (24) wrongful foreclosure, (25) breach of fiduciary duty, (26) breach of contract. The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that he was the victim of a predatory lending scheme, resulting in his home being unjustly foreclosed upon. See Dkt. No. 1 at 12.

The Court ordered plaintiff to show cause on or before July 9, 2012, why the instant action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and admonished plaintiff that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the case with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 7 at 2. As of the date of this order, plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES plaintiff's action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120713

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.