(PS) Nelson-Rogers v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 15, 20232:22-cv-01954California903 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARY ALICE NELSON ROGERS, No. 2:22-cv-01954 TLN CKD PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER JP MORGAN CHASE, N.A., et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has paid the filing fee. Before the court is plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, brought against six defendants: (1) JP Morgan Chase Bank, (2) Chase Home Finance LLC, (3) MERSCORP (which “owns and operates an electronic registry system that purports to track the ownership and servicing rights . . . in residential mortgages”), (4) MERSCORP’s alleged subsidiary MERS Inc., and (5) and (6) two employees of the Sacramento Superior Court. ECF No. 7 (“FAC”) at 3-4. On March 9, 2023, the two court defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, arguing among other things that it fails to state a cognizable claim against them. ECF No. 11. As set forth in this court’s January 23, 2023 findings and recommendations in Nelson- Rogers v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.