UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LUIS IVAN POBLETE,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action 09-01742 (HHK)
L. DARREN GOLDBERG, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Luis Ivan Poblete commenced this action against L. Darren Goldberg, James E.
Clarke, Renee Dyson, Ocwen Loan Servicing (“Ocwen”), America’s Servicing Company, and
U.S. Bank National Association by filing and serving a document titled “Nice Offer and
Demands” (“complaint”).1 It appears that this action concerns real properties owned by Poblete
and that the individual defendants have been appointed substitute trustee(s) in foreclosure
proceedings in which Poblete is apparently involved. Before the Court are three motions to
dismiss filed by Ocwen, America’s Servicing Company and U.S. Bank N.A., and the individual
defendants, respectively [## 3, 7, 11].
After each motion to dismiss was filed, the Court ordered that Poblete respond to it by a
particular date. As required by Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the Court
warned Poblete that failure to respond to the defendants’ motions could result in the Court
granting the motions as conceded and dismissing the case.
1
This Court adopts the defendants’ assumption that the “Nice Offer and Demands” is
Poblete’s complaint.
Local Civil Rule 7(b) provides:
Within 11 days of the date of service or at such other time as the Court may direct,
an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in
opposition to the motion. If such a memorandum is not filed within the prescribed
time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded.
LCvR 7(b). A district court may grant a motion to dismiss as conceded based on the absence of a
response. See Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (affirming district
court’s grant of motion to dismiss as conceded due to plaintiff’s failure to file a response). The
deadlines the Court set for Poblete’s response have now passed. Poblete has not filed an
opposition addressing the defendants’ arguments for dismissal. Nor has he sought additional time
to do so. Therefore, pursuant to LCvR 7(b), these unopposed motions are deemed conceded.
The Court further observes that the defendants’ motions present sound justifications for
dismissal. In particular, the Court agrees with Ocwen’s contention that Poblete’s complaint fails
to meet the pleading requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain (1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds
for the court’s jurisdiction,” (2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief,” and (3) “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). This minimal
standard serves to give fair notice to defendants of the claim or claims being asserted such that
defendants are able to file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense, and determine
whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C.
1977). Pleading deficiencies that warrant dismissal include (1) “confused and rambling narrative
of charges and conclusions,” (2) “untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor
concisely stated, nor meaningfully distinguished from bold conclusions, sharp harangues and
2
personal comments,” and (3) failing to allege “with even modest particularity the dates and places
of the alleged transactions.” Id. at 499.
Poblete’s complaint does not satisfy the pleading rules. The caption of the document
reads:
NICE OFFER AND DEMANDS
NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS
AND NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS
THIS IS LAWFUL NOTICE TO CLAIMANT THAT UNTIL CLAIMANT HAS
VALIDATED AS STIPULATED AND PRODUCED AS STIPULATED , THE
INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION DEMANDED HEREIN
CLAIMANT MUST CEASE ANY AND ALL FORECLOSURE
AND /OR COLLECTION ACTIVITIES IMMEDIATELY .
COMES NOW , Affiant, one of the people of Missouri, the Sovereign spoken
of in Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, in a special appearance only to present to Claimant this
“nice offer and demands” and lawful legal notice(s) pursuant to (but not limited to)
the Constitution for the United States, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 3-
601, 3-602, 3-603, 3-604, 3-605, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA)
15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, 1692 et seq, and applicable law. Pursuant to the federal
Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and requires your written response
or rebuttal (point by point) to Affiant, specific to the subject matter within 30 days.
Failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut that with which you disagree, in
writing, with particularity, to Affiant, within 30 days of the date this Nice Offer
And Demands was received by Claimant, and support Claimant’s disagreement
with fact, evidence and Constitutionally based law, constitutes Claimant’s full
agreement with Affiant’s allegations and claims.
“Your silence is your acquiescence”. See: Connally v. General Construction Co.,
269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due
process of law”. See also: U.S. V. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297. “Silence can only be
equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an
inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading”.
Compl. at 2.
This opening is just a brief example of the nonsensical contents of the document. The 29-
page “Nice Offer and Demands” consists of an assortment of items including sworn statements,
requests for production of original documents, inquiries that are akin to interrogatories, and
3
seemingly irrelevant true/false questions.2 It also contains a collection of definitions of words,
including “and” and “date”; Poblete’s definition of “document” or “documents” takes up more
than one page. Compl. at 6–7. Poblete cites various sections of the U.S. Constitution, the
Uniform Commercial Code, and state and federal statutes without explaining why they are
relevant to his claims. The lack of both factual allegations and cohesive arguments renders the
complaint incomprehensible. The document lacks essential elements such as a description of the
alleged transactions, identifications of parties involved, and the dates and places of key events.
Therefore, the complaint does not assist the defendants in ascertaining the nature and scope of this
action beyond the possible conclusion, from the opening text quoted above and other references to
debt scattered throughout the document, that Poblete is disputing some nonspecified debt and/or
foreclosure with the “Claimant,” his purported opponent. Consequently, defendants did not
receive fair notice of the claim or claims asserted against them and cannot prepare adequate
answers or defenses. “It belabors the obvious to conclude that the complaint filed in this action
falls far short of the admittedly liberal standard set in [Rule] 8(a).” Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 499.
For the foregoing reasons, Poblete’s complaint shall be dismissed. An appropriate order
accompanies this memorandum.
Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
For example, the first true/false question reads “TRUE|FALSE - ‘money’ is an asset and
an asset is ‘money’ or at least the equivalent of ‘money’, and that Federal Reserve Notes are
assets, and ‘checkbook money’ or ‘demand deposits’ are liabilities of a financial institution and
therefore the opposite of money.” Compl. at 23. Another reads “TRUE|FALSE - Affiant states
that copy of a thing cannot be the thing, no matter how cleverly it is worded or stated.” Id. at
23–24. Poblete also cites from various statues and other publications, for instance, one reads
“TRUE|FALSE - ‘[n]o bank ever lends its deposits’ Money and Banking by Professor David R.
Kamerschen, 9th Edition, page 164.” Id. at 26.
4