Esther Enunwaonye v. Aurora Loan Services LLC et al
| Esther Enunwaonye |
| Quality Loan Service Corporation, SBMC Mortgage General Partnership, Does, Aurora Loan Services LLC and Aurora Bank FSB |
| 2:2011cv00879 |
| January 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Margaret A. Nagle |
| Otis D Wright |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
67
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 64 by Judge Otis D Wright, II. Because Plaintiff has failed to establish a material change of facts or law, a manifest showing that the Court failed to consider facts to support his position , or any other "highly unusual circumstances" warranting reconsideration of the Court's 2/14/2012 Order, and because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect under FRCP 60(b)(1), the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration in its entirety. (jp)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER GRANTING Defendants Motions to Dismiss 48 , 50 by Judge Otis D Wright:SBMCs Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED and all claims against SBMC are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, Auroras Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims again st Aurora for tortious violation of statute, reformation, violation of California Civil Code § 2923.6; and violation of California Civil Code § 1788.17 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs claims against Aurora for fraud, violation of C alifornia Civil Code § 1572, quiet title, violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As to these claims, Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) day s in which to amend her complaint to state a claim II:against Aurora. If Plaintiff can properly allege facts to support justifiable reliance, she may amend her fraud claim. Plaintiff is otherwise granted leave to amend to bring additional claims agai nst Aurora which have not already been adjudicated by the Court.Finally, the Court advises Plaintiff that a Federal Pro Se Clinic is located in the United States Courthouse. Plaintiff may wish to visit the clinic before filing an amended complaint. (lc)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
