Palmer v. Wells Fargo, NA
Filing
14
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 11/21/11 RECOMMENDING that defendants' 4 motion to dismiss be granted, without leave to amend, and this case be closed. Motion referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KELLY T. PALMER,
12
13
14
15
No. CIV S-11-1786-KJM-CMK
Plaintiff,
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WELLS FARGO, NA.,
Defendant.
16
17
/
Plaintiff, proceeding in this action in propria persona, brings this civil action
18
related to the foreclosure of his property. Pending before the court is defendants’ unopposed
19
motion to dismiss (Doc. 4). As no opposition was filed, the hearing on this motion was taken off
20
calendar pursuant to Local Rule 230.
21
22
I.
23
Defendant removed this foreclosure action from state court to this court on
Background
24
January 24, 2011. The complaint alleges the defendant acted in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 524 in
25
pursuing a foreclosure of his property following a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy discharge. Plaintiff
26
alleges that he filed for Bankruptcy in June 2008, and received his discharge in October 2008.
1
1
He states his bankruptcy case was reopened in May 2010, and closed again in June 2010.
2
Following the end of his bankruptcy proceedings, he received a notice of default dated July 28,
3
2010. Then in October 2010, he received a notice of trustee’s sale. On January 14, 2011, he
4
states he received a notice to quit. He alleges he notified the defendant of the bankruptcy
5
proceedings, and asked that the notice to quit be immediately rescinded. Following that notice,
6
he filed this action in the Shasta County Superior Court on February 22, 2011.
7
8
II.
9
Defendant filed the motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Motion to Dismiss
10
Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant argues plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
11
granted, and any attempt at amendment would be futile.
12
A.
13
In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all allegations of
Legal Standards
14
material fact in the complaint as true. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). The
15
court must also construe the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer
16
v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425
17
U.S. 738, 740 (1976); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). All
18
ambiguities or doubts must also be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen,
19
395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). However, legally conclusory statements, not supported by actual
20
factual allegations, need not be accepted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50
21
(2009). In addition, pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
22
lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
2
1
Rule 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
2
the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is
3
and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
4
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for
5
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic
6
recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to
7
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555-56. The complaint must contain
8
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has
9
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
10
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at
11
1949. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more
12
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 550
13
U.S. at 556). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s
14
liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility for entitlement to relief.”
15
Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 557).
16
To determine whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,
17
the court generally may not consider materials outside the complaint and pleadings. See Cooper
18
v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 1998); Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir.
19
1994). The court may, however, consider: (1) documents whose contents are alleged in or
20
attached to the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, see Branch, 14 F.3d at 454;
21
(2) documents whose authenticity is not in question, and upon which the complaint necessarily
22
relies, but which are not attached to the complaint, see Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,
23
688 (9th Cir. 2001); and (3) documents and materials of which the court may take judicial notice,
24
see Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 1994).
25
///
26
///
3
1
Finally, leave to amend must be granted “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no
2
amendment can cure the defects.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per
3
curiam); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
4
B.
5
Plaintiff alleges the defendant violated 11 U.S.C. § 524 by proceeding with a
Discussion
6
foreclosure on his property following his bankruptcy discharge. Reading the complaint as
7
liberally as possible, it appears that plaintiff believes and alleges that all of his debts were
8
discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding regardless of the nature of those debts, and he should
9
not have been contacted by any creditor for any reason. Unfortunately, a bankruptcy discharge
10
does not offer such blanket discharge without regard for the type of debts involved. In a Chapter
11
7 Bankruptcy, generally the debts that are discharged are the unsecured debts of the debtor. See
12
In re Henry, 266 B.R. 457, 471-72 (Bkrtcy. C.D. Cal. 2001) (setting forth variations in the ways
13
debts are discharged). There are certain types of debts which are not dischargable at all in a
14
bankruptcy proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. § 523 (setting forth non-dischargable debts). In addition,
15
secured debts, such as a mortgage, are not simply discharged in bankruptcy proceedings without
16
regards to the secured property. Rather, a debtor has to make a choice as to how to deal with the
17
secured property. He can surrender the property to the secured creditor, he can redeem the
18
property by paying the creditor the fair market value, he can reaffirm the debt, or he can retain
19
the property so long as he continues to make the contract payments (known as a “ride-through”).
20
See 11 U.S.C. § 521(2)(a); McClelland Fed. Credit Union v. Parker (In re Parker), 139 F.3d 668
21
(9th Cir. 1998).
22
Here, plaintiff claims the defendant violated § 524. The violations are not
23
specifically alleged, but based on the factual allegations the court can envision two possible
24
claims for violation from plaintiff’s perspective. First, it is possible plaintiff’s claim is based on
25
the letters received by plaintiff after his discharge. Second, it is possible the claim is based on
26
the actual foreclosure of the property. Either way, the court can see no possible way the
4
1
defendant violated § 524 based on facts presented in the complaint. The bankruptcy injunction
2
protects a debtor against harassment from creditors during the bankruptcy proceedings and
3
thereafter as to all debts which were discharged. However, as discussed above, secured debts are
4
not completely discharged. “[I]n cases where the creditor holds a secured interest in property
5
subject to a scheduled debt, a discharge extinguishes only the personal liability of the debtor.
6
‘Notwithstanding the discharge, the [secured creditor]’s right to proceed against [the debtor] in
7
rem survived the Chapter 7 liquidation.’” In re Garske, 287 B.R. 537, 452 (9th Cir. BAP 2002)
8
(quoting Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 80 (1991).
9
It appears that plaintiff attempted to keep the secured property without either
10
reaffirming the debt or continuing to make the contract payments. While plaintiff cannot be held
11
personally liable for any deficiency there may be between the value of the property when sold
12
and the debt owed to the defendant, he was still under the obligation to pay for the property if he
13
wished to keep it. According to the allegations in the complaint, the defendant waited until the
14
completion of the bankruptcy proceedings before exercising its rights to proceed in rem on the
15
secured property. Contact between a debtor and a secured creditor after the conclusion of the
16
bankruptcy proceedings does not violate the discharge injunction provided in § 524. Neither did
17
the defendant violate § 524 by foreclosing on the property.
18
19
III.
20
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Thus,
21
defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted in full. Leave to amend must be granted
22
“[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defects.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr.,
23
66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th
24
Cir. 2000) (en banc). Here, it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects discussed above.
25
Thus, the undersigned recommends no leave to amend be granted.
26
///
5
1
2
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendants’ motion to
dismiss (Doc. 4) be granted, without leave to amend, and this case be closed.
3
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
4
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
5
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
6
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
7
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
8
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
9
10
11
12
DATED: November 21, 2011
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?