David Allen v. J P Morgan Chase Bank NA et al

Filing 82

MINUTES: Proceedings: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, California Reconveyance Company, Chase Home Finance LLC, JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, Washington Mutual Bank FA 64 (non-evidentiary) before Judge A. Howard Matz (see attached Minute Order for further details). The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion with respect to David Allen. Allen may proceed with his claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Additionally, Allen may pursue his fraud claim a imed at Defendants' conduct during the loan modification process. However, Allen has no standing to proceed on the additional theories of fraud addressed by Defendants, including flawed securitization andconcealment. Court Reporter: Katie Thibodeaux. (jp)

O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV11-03609-AHM (CWx)

Title

DAVID ALLEN et al. v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

November 5, 2012

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes

Katie Thibodeaux

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

David Allen, pro se

John M. Sorich
LaShon Harris

Proceedings:

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, California Reconveyance
Company, Chase Home Finance LLC, JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, Washington Mutual Bank
FA [64] (non-evidentiary)

Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) and California Reconveyance
Company (collectively, “Defendants”) bring this motion for partial summary adjudication
against Plaintiffs David Allen (“Allen”), Kelly Lamar, John David Allen, and the Estate
of Jamie Lamar Allen, pro se.1 After questioning counsel and hearing oral argument, for
the reasons stated on the record and as discussed below, the Court GRANTS in part and
DENIES in part Defendants’ motion.
Additionally, the Court ORDERS the parties to proceed to the Court’s Pilot
Program for Loan Modification Mediation. Further order to issue. The Court intends to
stay the case while the parties are in mediation.
I.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court GRANTS the motion on all claims as to all plaintiffs other than David
Allen. The three additional plaintiffs were not borrowers under the promissory note or
parties to the Trial Period Plan—and they admitted as much in their responses to
Defendants’ requests for admission. Those three plaintiffs therefore lack standing to
pursue breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud claims arising from the subject
loan. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (listing the elements essential to a contract, including
“parties capable of contracting” and “their consent”); Cal. Civ. Code § 1558 (“It is
1

Dkt. 64. Defendants label their motion as one for “partial summary judgment.”

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

O

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV11-03609-AHM (CWx)

Date

Title

November 5, 2012

DAVID ALLEN et al. v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, et al.

essential to the validity of a contract, not only that the parties should exist, but that it
should be possible to identify them.”); Garcia v. World Sav., FSB, 183 Cal. App. 4th
1031, 1044 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (“[A] promise is an indispensable element of the
doctrine of promissory estoppel.”).
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion with respect to David
Allen. Allen may proceed with his claims for breach of contract and promissory
estoppel. Additionally, Allen may pursue his fraud claim aimed at Defendants’ conduct
during the loan modification process. However, Allen has no standing to proceed on the
additional theories of fraud addressed by Defendants, including flawed securitization and
concealment. See, e.g., Bernardi v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 2343679, at
*2 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2012) (noting on motion to dismiss declaratory relief claim, where
plaintiff alleged wrongful foreclosure claim based on failure to abide by securitization
agreement, that “Plaintiff lacks standing to allege a breach of the [Pooling and Servicing
Agreement] because she is neither a direct party to nor a third-party beneficiary of that
agreement”).

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

25

SMO

Page 2 of 2