John Taylor v. Mr. Cooper, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN TAYLOR, Case No. 25-cv-08680-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 MR. COOPER, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 5 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper1 and Defendant 14 U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10, 15 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-10’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion to 16 dismiss. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, 17 the hearing set for February 12, 2026, is VACATED. See Civil L.R. 7-6, Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 78(b). 18 Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered the arguments therein and relevant legal 19 authority, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss for the following 20 reasons. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff John Taylor filed suit against Defendants on July 9, 2025, in Sonoma County 23 Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1-4. The complaint brings four causes of action stemming from a 24 foreclosure sale of Taylor’s home. Id. ¶¶ 2, 13-16. On October 9, 2025, Defendants removed to 25 this Court. Dkt. No. 1. On October 15, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that 26 Taylor failed to properly serve Defendants. Dkt. No. 5. Taylor failed to file anything in response. 27 1 On December 10, 2025, the Court issued an order to show cause for failure to prosecute pursuant 2 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Dkt. No. 14. On December 18, 2025, Taylor filed an 3 opposition to the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 15, and a response to the order to show cause, Dkt. 4 No. 16. On December 22, 2025, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. 5 Dkt. No. 18. 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 Dismissal of a case is proper when there is insufficient service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. 8 P. 12(b)(5); Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (“In the 9 absence of service of process (or waiver of service by the defendant), a court ordinarily may not 10 exercise power over a party the complaint names as defendant.”); Saye v. Rubin, 225 F.3d 663 (9th 11 Cir. 2000) (affirming dismissal for failure to properly serve defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 12(b)(5)). “[I]n the absence of proper service of process, the district court has no power to render 13 any judgment against the defendant’s person or property unless the defendant has consented to 14 jurisdiction or waived the lack of process.” S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 15 2007). “Once service is challenged, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that service was 16 valid under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 4.” Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th 17 Cir. 2004). A district court has broad discretion to dismiss an action for failure to effect service. 18 Jones v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 26 Fed. App’x. 740, 742 (9th Cir. 2002). 19 DISCUSSION 20 Defendants argue that they were not properly served because they received an incomplete 21 summons, which lacked a case number, and was not signed or dated by the Sonoma County Court 22 Clerk. Dkt. No. 5 at 5. Taylor’s opposition to the motion to dismiss does not discuss service 23 whatsoever. See Dkt. No. 15. Because Taylor does not explain why service was proper, Taylor 24 has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he properly served Defendants. See Brockmeyer, 25 383 F.3d at 801. Further, because Taylor did not respond to Defendants’ argument that the case 26 should be dismissed for failure to properly serve, he has conceded that the case should be 27 dismissed on that ground. Khalif v. City of Belvedere, No. 4:22-CV-04097-YGR, 2023 WL 1 generally understood as a concession.”); Jones v. Ghaly, No. 21-CV-05828-JSW, 2022 WL 2 1128680, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2022) (failing to address defendants’ arguments for dismissal 3 is “a concession that those claims should be dismissed”). 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses this 6 || action without prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to close this case. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: February 5, 2026 10 ‘Moc □ 1 coh ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 12 United States District Judge

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28