Kaur et al v. Citibank, N.A. et al

Filing 16

ORDER directing defendant to file additional briefing signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/19/14. (Nazaroff, H)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

INDAR JEET KAUR, an individual;
ASHWINDAR KAUR, an individual,
Plaintiffs

10
11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01610
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO
FILE ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

v.
CITIBANK, N.A., a national banking
association; MICHAEL OSUNA, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive
Defendants

15

On Aug 16, 2013, Plaintiffs Indar Kaur’s and Ashwindar Kaur’s (“Plaintiffs”) filed claims

16

against defendant Citibank (“Defendant”) for damages arising from intentional misrepresentation,

17

negligent misrepresentation and promises made without intention to perform. On March 13, 2014,

18

Defendant filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings alleging that Plaintiffs’

19

complaint is barred by judicial estoppel for failure to list this potential cause of action as an asset

20

during each Plaintiff’s individual bankruptcy proceedings.

21
22

LEGAL STANDARD
“[J]udgment on the pleadings is improper when the district court goes beyond the

23

pleadings to resolve an issue; such a proceeding must properly be treated as a motion for summary

24

judgment.” Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989);

25

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(c). The court may consider the full text of documents referred to in the

26

complaint without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment, provided that the

27

document is central to plaintiff’s claim and no party questions the authenticity of the document.

28

Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994). In considering a Rule 12(c) motion for

1

judgment on the pleadings, courts make take judicial notice of documents and facts that are

2

referred to in the non-moving party’s pleading. Yang v. Dar Al-Handash Consultants, 250 F.

3

App'x 771, 772 (9th Cir. 2007).

4

DISCUSSION

5

While there is evidence over which the court can take judicial notice regarding the

6

potential cause of action arising from foreclosure of Plaintiffs’ property, neither the pleading nor

7

the information parties have provided give an indication of the date damage accrued by the

8

foreclosure’s occurrence.

9

ORDER

10

Accordingly, the Court orders that:

11

1.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide the Court with a more specific date regarding

12

when Plaintiffs knew they were unable to pay the amount demanded by First Southern National

13

Bank; and,

14
15
16

2.

Defendant is ordered to provide the Court with the date First Southern National

Bank foreclosed upon and possessed the Property;
Parties have 10 business days from issuance of this Order to comply.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 18, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2