Juan Moreno v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Filing 13

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Granting 6 MOTION to Dismiss Case. See Order for specifics. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (cr)

JS-6

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

CV 15-03188-RGK (Ex)

Title

MORENO v. U.S. BANK N.A.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

June 23, 2015

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (Not Present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:
I.

(IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 6)

INTRODUCTION

On March 25, 2015, Juan Moreno (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County against U.S. Bank, National Association (“Defendant”) alleging the following claims:
(1) violation of the California Civil Code § 2923.6; (2) contractual breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing; (3) violation of the Unfair Competition Act California Business and Professions
Code § 17200; and (4) promissory estoppel. On April 29, 2015, Defendant removed the action to this
Court. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”). For the following
reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of a $465,000 mortgage loan, secured by a deed of trust for
property located at 237 South Beachwood Drive, Burbank, California (“Property”). On November 16,
2006, Plaintiff obtained the mortgage loan, which Defendant soon thereafter owned and serviced.
Plaintiff alleges that around 2013 he suffered severe economic hardship due to the 2008 nationwide
recession. Despite Plaintiff’s attempts to adjust his mortgage loan, Defendant refused to accept any loan
modification packets or to adequately review Plaintiff’s financial information and grant a loan
modification.
III.

JUDICIAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed when
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

the plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When considering a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Barker v.
Riverside City Office of Edu., 584 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 2009). A pleading must contain sufficient
factual matter that, accepted as true, states a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when there are sufficient factual allegations to draw
a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. See id. However, a court
need not accept as true unreasonable inferences, unwarranted deductions of fact, or conclusory legal
allegations. W. Mining Counsel v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).
As a general rule, the court shall not consider facts outside the complaint. Arpin v. Santa Clara
Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001). However, “[u]nder Fed. R. Evid. 201, a court
may take judicial notice of ‘matters of public record.’” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689
(9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, a document not attached to a complaint “may be incorporated by reference
if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff’s
claim.” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). “The defendant may offer such a
document, and the district court may treat such a document as part of the complaint, and thus may
assume that its contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id.
IV.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the Court should dismiss the action in its entirety. Among other
contentions, Defendant argues the following: (1) Plaintiff is judicially estopped from bringing this
action; (2) California Civil Code § 2923.6(a) does not apply to Plaintiff, nor does § 2923.6(a) impose a
duty on Defendant to modify Plaintiff’s loan; (3) Plaintiff’s allegations do not support the requisite
elements of a claim for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) Plaintiff has not properly
alleged that Defendant engaged in any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice,” as
required by the Unfair Competition Business and Professions Code § 17200; and (5) Plaintiff’s
promissory estoppel claim is not based on a promise that satisfies the statute of frauds, nor does it
adequately allege the requisite elements.
Based on a review of the Complaint, Motion, Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, and
applicable law, it appears that at least some, if not all, of the arguments listed above are successful
challenges to all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court need not delve into the merits of these arguments,
however, as Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion. Local Rule 7-12 states that “the failure to timely
file any required paper may be deemed consent to the granting or denying of the motion.” As such, the
Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition as consent to granting Defendant’s Motion.
V.

CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2