From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aregger v. Merscorp, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2012
Case No. 11-5030 SC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 11-5030 SC

01-17-2012

TIMOTHY CHARLES AREGGER, Plaintiff, v. MERSCORP, Inc., d/b/a Mortgage Electronic Registration, Inc., FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE CO., CITIGROUP, INC., CITIMORTGAGE, INC., and CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY, Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Now before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss brought on October 19, 2011 by Defendants MERSCORP, Inc., d/b/a Mortgage Electronic Registration, Inc., Fieldstone Mortgage Company, CitiGroup, Inc., CitiMortgage, Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets Realty (collectively, "Defendants") against Plaintiff Timothy Charles Aregger. ECF No. 8 ("MTD"). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the motion suitable for determination without oral argument.

On August 30, 2011, Plaintiff brought an action for damages against Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of Marin. See ECF No. 1, Ex. A ("Compl."). The Complaint set forth nine causes of action based on allegations of misconduct related to Plaintiff's receipt of a mortgage and the subsequent foreclosure thereon. See generally Compl. Defendants removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, pursuant to the removal jurisdiction authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). ECF No. 1 ("NOM"). Defendants then filed the instant MTD.

The Complaint erroneously suggests the existence of ten causes of action by labeling each cause of action "first," "second," and so forth, up to "tenth," but omitting an eighth cause of action. Compare Compl. at 14 with id. at 16.

Defendants filed a certificate of service for the MTD on October 19, 2011. ECF No. 10. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff's opposition brief was due within 14 days. Plaintiff did not file an opposition brief within the prescribed time limit. In fact, Plaintiff has yet to make an appearance or prosecute his case in the three months since this Court acquired jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' unopposed Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES this case. The Court ORDERS Defendants to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff through Plaintiff's counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Aregger v. Merscorp, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2012
Case No. 11-5030 SC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Aregger v. Merscorp, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY CHARLES AREGGER, Plaintiff, v. MERSCORP, Inc., d/b/a Mortgageā€¦

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 17, 2012

Citations

Case No. 11-5030 SC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012)