Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WONG v. BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, N.A., 2:13-CV-1438 JCM (CWH). (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20140403b23 Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge. Presently before the court is defendant Bank of America Home Loans' motion to dismiss for lack of proper service. (Doc. # 6). Subsequently, defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. joined the motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 11). Pro se plaintiff Suet Wong filed a response in opposition (doc. # 9), and defendants filed a reply (doc. # 12). In the instant motion, defendants claim that plaintiff has failed to carry
More

ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is defendant Bank of America Home Loans' motion to dismiss for lack of proper service. (Doc. # 6). Subsequently, defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. joined the motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 11). Pro se plaintiff Suet Wong filed a response in opposition (doc. # 9), and defendants filed a reply (doc. # 12).

In the instant motion, defendants claim that plaintiff has failed to carry out proper service in accordance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h). Thus, they argue that this case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5).

Plaintiff admits that she has not properly served defendants, but claims that defendants have actively avoided being served. Plaintiff argues that defendants' counsel should accept service or provide her with a valid address at which defendants can be served.

The court finds that dismissal is appropriate because plaintiff has not carried out proper service. Though the court grants leniency to the pleadings of pro se litigants due to the lack of legal knowledge, the court cannot waive the requirements of due process based on someone's lack of counsel. Therefore, defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. # 6) be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is hereby dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (doc. # 15) is DENIED as moot.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer