The Banks Respond

Today, the banks filed their formal reply to my complaint, which included three motions:

In their Motion to Dismiss, they alleged, in part, that the Plaintiffs used a “shotgun” approach in their Complaint, and that it relied on a “hodgepodge of legal and factually insufficient claims challenging the chain of title related to the Property.”  They asked the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ case “for failing to provide a short, plain statement of the claim” and “for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

In their Motion to Exceed Page Limitation, they asked the court to allow their Motion to Dismiss to exceed the normal page limit for motions, “due to Pro Se Plaintiffs’ Complaint being comprised of over 20 pages of often confusing legal and factual assertions and numerous theories of liability spread among 13 separate causes of action that required individual analysis and briefing by Defendants.”

In their Motion to Stay, they asked the court to “stay certain pretrial deadlines and discovery pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss filed on December 7, 2011.”

Time to do more research …

This entry was posted in History. Bookmark the permalink.