Bishara Kakish v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 27, 2019
• Docket: 5:19-cv-01273
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

11 BISHARA KAKISH, Case № 5:19-CV-01273-ODW (SHKx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE 14 MR. COOPER and DOES 1 through 10, STATEMENT [11]

15 Defendants.

17 18 Plaintiff Bishara Kakish, pro se, initiated this action against Defendant Mr. 19 Cooper (Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, or “Nationstar”) in the Superior 20 Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino. (Notice of Removal Ex. 1 21 (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) On page four of the Complaint, on a form labeled 22 “General Negligence,” Kakish appears to allege that Nationstar failed to issue a 23 conditional lien release on Kakish’s mobile home property, which prevented Kakish 24 from selling his property and caused him harm. (Compl. 4.) Nationstar timely 25 removed the action to this Court. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) Nationstar now 26 moves for a more definite statement on the basis that Kakish’s Complaint fails to 27 satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and “does not provide Nationstar or this 28 Court with sufficient information regarding the factual basis for Plaintiff’s claim.” 1 (Mot. for More Definite Statement (“Mot.”), ECF No. 11.) For the reason that follow, 2 the Court GRANTS Nationstar’s Motion.1 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides, where a pleading is “so vague 4 and ambiguous that [a] party cannot reasonably prepare a response,” the party “may 5 move for a more definite statement” of the pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). 6 “However, a motion for a more definite statement must be considered in light of the 7 liberal pleading standards of Rule 8(a).” Hubbs v. Cty. of San Bernardino, CA, 538 F. 8 Supp. 2d 1254, 1262 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 9 1450, 1461 (C.D. Cal. 1996)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring only “a short and plan 10 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”). Thus, “[a] Rule 11 12(e) motion is proper only if the complaint is so indefinite that the defendant cannot 12 ascertain the nature of the claim being asserted in order to frame a response.” 13 Medrano v. Kern Cty. Sheriff’s Officer, 921 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1013 (E.D. Cal. 2013). 14 This motion must be made before a response is filed, and it must explain the defects of 15 the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). If the pleading party fails to provide this 16 statement after being ordered to do so, “the court may strike the pleading or issue any 17 other appropriate order.” Id. 18 Central District of California Local Rule 7-12 provides that the Court “may 19 decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline 20 set by order or local rule.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The failure to file any required 21 document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the 22 granting or denial of the motion . . . .”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 23 1995). 24 Nationstar moves for a more definite statement, contending that the Complaint 25 does not provide fair notice of the claims asserted against Nationstar. (Mot. 5.) 26 Nationstar set the motion hearing on Monday August 26, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. (See 27 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deems the 28 matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing on Monday September 9, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. is hereby VACATED. 1 || Mot.) The Court continued the hearing to Monday September 9, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. 2 || (Min. Order, ECF No. 14.) Accordingly, Kakish’s opposition was due no later than 3 || August 19, 2019. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 (requiring oppositions to be filed no later than twenty-one days before the motion hearing). However, to date, the Court has 5 || received no response from Kakish. The time for such an opposition has expired. 6 || Accordingly, the Court deems Kakish’s failure to timely oppose or otherwise respond 7 || as consent to granting the motion. 8 The Court GRANTS Nationstar’s Motion for More Definite Statement. (ECF 9 || No. 11). Kakish shall file an amended complaint no later than twenty-one (21) days 10 || from the date of this Order, which is Tuesday, September 17, 2019. Failure to timely 11 | amend will result in the Complaint being stricken and dismissal of the action. 12 || Nationstar shall immediately serve a copy of this Order on Kakish and file a proof of 13 || such service with the Court. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 August 27, 2019 * teayisd 19 asi 0 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28