Aneesah Hasan vs. U.S. Bank NA, et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Re: Unopposed Motions To Dismiss 5 , To Strike 6 and To Expunge Lis Pendes 7 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/26/2010. (Gaumnitz, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 recorded a notice of lis pendes, RJN Ex. D. Plaintiff's complaint, which was removed from the Superior Court for the County of Kern, alleges (1) violations of California Business and 1 the amount of $309,000.00, secured by a deed of trust encumbering real property in Bakersfield, California. Doc. 1-1 ("Compl.") v. U.S. BANK, NA, et al., Defendants. In December 2006, Plaintiff Aneesh Hasan obtained a loan in ANEESH HASAN, Plaintiff, 1:10-cv-00862 OWW JLT MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOC. 5), TO STRIKE (DOC. 6) AND TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDES (DOC. 7) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

¶1; Doc. 8. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Ex. A. Plaintiff defaulted on the loan, and Defendants proceeded to RJN Exs. B (Notice of Default) &

foreclose on the real property. C (Notice of Trustee's Sale).

Plaintiff, who is represented by

Gary Patton, Esq., of the Prodigy Law Group in Irvine, California, filed this lawsuit on April 13, 2010, see Compl., and

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., ("UCL"); (2) fraud; (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) conversion; (5) quiet title; (6) fraud in the inducement; (7) unfair business practices; (8) breach of fiduciary duty; (9) wrongful foreclosure; (10) civil conspiracy; (11) aiding and abetting; (12) unlawful joint venture; (13) injunctive relief; (14) rescission of loan contracts; (15) breach of contract; (16) and violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). Before the court for decision are Defendants motions: (a) to dismiss all of the claims in the Complaint, Doc. 5; (b) to strike the punitive damages prayer, Doc. 6; and (c) to expunge lis

pendes, Doc. 7, all of which were filed on May 21, 2010 and set
for hearing on July 26, 2010. Plaintiff's oppositions to these

motions were due on July 12, 2010.

See E.D.C.A. Local Rule

230(c)(requiring opposition or statement of non-opposition to be filed not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the noticed hearing date). As of July 21, 2010, counsel had not filed any Court staff left a

opposition or statement of non-opposition.

voicemail message for Plaintiff's counsel on or about July 14, 2010, reminding counsel of his obligation to file a statement of non-opposition if he did not intend to oppose the motions. Counsel never responded to that call. "No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party."

Id.

The motions to dismiss,

strike, and expunge lis pendes, filed on behalf of all Defendants, are well-founded and unopposed. motions are GRANTED. Defendant shall file a form of order consistent with this decision within five (5) days of its electronic service. Accordingly, these

SO ORDERED Dated: July 26, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

3