Opinion
CV 23-6177-MWF (Ex)
01-18-2024
Gary Abrams et al v. BCMB1 Trust et al.
Rita Sanchez
Rita Sanchez
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
On December 19, 2023, the Court granted Defendants BCMB1 Trust's and Planet Home Lending, LLC's Motion to Dismiss on Rule 8 and claim preclusion grounds. (Docket No. 40). The Court also issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why this action should not be dismissed as to Defendant Susan Mikhaela, the sole remaining Defendant in this action, for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the OSC by January 8, 2024, would result in dismissal of this action.
On January 11, 2024, three days after the OSC deadline, Plaintiffs filed a response to the OSC (the “Response”) titled “MOTION AND NOTICE TIME-BARRED STANDING ARTICLE III VOID DEED OF TRUST FRAUD UPON COURT FALSE CLAIM ALTERNATIVE RULE 60 (B) OREDER [sic] TO SHOWS [sic] CAUSE.” (Docket No. 41). In addition to being untimely, the Response is unintelligible and focuses on issues that were not raised by the OSC, such as standing. The Response also makes only one mention of Defendant Mikhaela, stating that “[i]t is irrelevant whether Susan Mikhaela was a good faith purchaser, as the nemo dat doctrine trumps the bond fide purchase doctrine.” (Id. ¶ 75 (emphasis in original)).
After reviewing the Response, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs fail to explain why this action should not be dismissed as to Defendant Mikhaela. As the Court has previously noted, the Complaint falls woefully short of Rule 8's pleading requirements. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (requiring “a short and plain statement of the claim that the pleader is entitled to relief”). For example, the only allegations asserted against Defendant Mikhaela are that she was the winning bidder on Plaintiffs' home, which was wrongfully foreclosed by Defendants BCMB1 Trust and Planet Home Lending, LLC. (First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 15) ¶¶ 6, 14-15).
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the OSC and failed to allege a claim against Defendant Mikhaela. The action is therefore DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment.