Matt Bartell v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank

MEMORANDUM

Although Plaintiffs allege .that the foreclosure of their home is illegal because JPMorgan Chase Bank has no right to collect the Bashkingys’ mortgage payments, the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) fails to plead any facts to support this theory. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Without any facts supporting Plaintiffs’ theory, the SAC fails to go beyond “labels and conclusions” and provide “[f]actual allegations ... to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

The SAC is Plaintiffs’ third filing that raises claims challenging the validity of the foreclosure and their third failed attempt to provide any factual basis for these claims. Because Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to cure these deficiencies, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532-33 (9th Cir.2008). Similarly, the district court didn’t err in denying discovery,…