United States District Court, E.D. California
Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
appearing in pro se sues for fraud, misrepresentation,
violation of agreement and under RESPA, 12 U.S.C. §
2605. ECF No. 1. On March 23, 2017 the court issued an order
dismissing the fraud and misrepresentation claims and
directed defendant Real Time Resolutions [Real Time] to file
an answer to the RESPA claim as it had been narrowly defined
in the findings and recommendations, and dismissing defendant
Long Beach Mortgage Company from the action. ECF No. 39.
Plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to amend, ECF No. 40,
together with a second amended complaint on March 31, 2017.
ECF No. 41. Real Time opposed the motion to amend on April
19, 2017 and filed an answer to the first amended complaint
on April 21, 2017. ECF No. 43. The matter was on the
magistrate judge's calendar for hearing on May 4, 2017,
but that hearing was vacated and the matter taken under
submission on May 1, 2017. ECF No. 44.
2, 2017, plaintiff filed a reply to Real Time's
opposition to his motion to amend and affirmatively pled to
join Duetsche Bank America Holding Corp. [Duetsche Bank] as
an additional party-defendant. ECF No. 45. The request to add
Deutsche Bank was set for hearing on the court's vacated
May 4, 2017 calendar. Id.
30, 2017 the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause why
the action should not be dismissed insofar as plaintiff
purported to predicate his action on a mortgage on property
located at 842 Georgia Street, Vallejo, California whereas
the documents to which judicial notice had been afforded
disclosed that this property was not a subject to the loan at
the heart of the action. Indeed, the property subject to the
loan was located at 515 Alabama St., Vallejo, California. ECF
No. 47 at 2. That Order also addressed plaintiff's Motion
to Add Duetsche Bank.
responded to the Order to Show Cause on June 15, 2017.
Order to Show Cause
response indicated that “[t]he property designation
mix-up was the result of a simple clerical error by the
pro se Plaintiff and should not lead to a dismissal
of the action.” ECF No. 48 at 2:11-13. Plaintiff also
adds “new facts” in an effort to address his
seeming ignorance regarding the scope of the mortgages that
are the subject of his claims. Id. at
the court has no reason not to accept plaintiff's
explanation for the misidentification of the subject property
as a “mix-up, ” this explanation fails completely
to recognize that which was stated in the court's Order
to Show cause, ECF No. 47, at 2:18-24: Complaints are
important documents. They stand as the vehicle to bring the
power of the United States judicial system to bear upon
persons/entities that have committed a wrong, or conversely,
having committed no wrong to the plaintiff, must nevertheless
bear expense and turmoil to demonstrate that fact. At the
very least, the initial charging document must be thought out
and accurate. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause
why this action should not be dismissed as being based on a
completely inaccurate premise, i.e., that defendants
unlawfully enforced, impacted or affected a loan given for
the 842 Georgia St. “subject property.”
constantly shifting sands of plaintiff's position and the
repetitive increase in the facts asserted and the documents
filed to support these new facts in this litigation has
engaged both the opposing litigant and this court in a
seemingly endless series to motions and orders without moving
the litigation forward.
the hope that the foregoing obligation is now firmly fixed in
plaintiff's mind, the court will discharge the Order to
Show Cause and allow this matter to proceed on the RESPA
claim only in conformity with the Order of the District Court
entered on March 23, 2017, ECF No. 39, and reminds plaintiff
that the Order dismissed fraud and misrepresentation claims.
That dismissal is now the law of the case and no further
action can be taken in this court to reframe such claims.
See ECF No. 47 at 2:26-3:2.
Request to Join Deutsche Bank
court discussed the legal deficiency of plaintiff's
request to add this party quite thoroughly in its Order to
Show Cause. ECF No. 47 at 9:16-10:24. Although plaintiff
attached a number of documents to his latest filing, he did
not respond to the successor liability issue addressed in the
Order, thereby not contesting the court's order ...