Placido Carillo et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al
| Jocelyn Carillo and Placido Carillo |
| CitiMortgage, Inc., Verdugo Trustee Service Corporation and Does |
| 2:2009cv02404 |
| April 7, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Los Angeles |
| Matz |
| Woehrle |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1601 Truth in Lending |
| Plaintiff |
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
25
ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge A. Howard Matz: Having read and considered the parties Stipulation for Dismissal 24 , the Court finds that there is good cause to dismiss this action. that the above entitled action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Each party shall bear its own costs (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
|
|
Filing
20
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 17 . In particular, the Court dismisses with prejudice the TILA damages claim (number two), th e portion of the RESPA claim (number three) based upon 12 USC section 2607, and the portion of the UCL claim (number four) that is predicated upon violations of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1916.7 and 1918.5-1921. The Court denies the motion to dismis s the portion of the RESPA claim based upon 12 USC section 2605 and all portions of the UCL claim not based upon the violation of these provisions of the California Civil Code. By not later than December 14, 2009, Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amend ed Complaintwhich will be their final complaintthat is consistent with this Order. Specifically, Plaintiffs may not add new allegations and must delete those allegations that have now been dismissed. No hearing is necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. R. 7-15. (jp)
|
|
Filing
15
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint 8 Claims one, two, four and five are dismissed with leave to amend. Claim three is dismissed without leave to amend because it is not possible for Plaintiffs to allege in good faith that CITI is a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA. Any amended complaint shall be filed by not later than 10/21/2009. (jp)
|
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.
