Vogan et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al
Filing
30
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/16/11 ORDERING that defendant's 10 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: Plaintiffs' claim for negligence against Defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice; Plaintiffs& #039; claims for declaratory relief and an accounting against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; and the Court's previous Order dismissing with prejudice all remaining claims against First American is REAFFIRMED; Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' remaining claims is DENIED. Defendants shall file their answers to Plaintiffs' Complaint within twenty (20) days of this Order. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
BILLI VOGAN and HAROLD TRAUPEL,
individuals,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; US BANK )
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE )
FOR WFMBS 2005-AR12; WELLS FARGO )
HOME MORTGAGE; and FIRST
)
AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICING
)
SOLUTIONS FORMERLY KNOWN AS
)
FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR TRUSTEE )
SERVICES, LLC; and Does 1-100,
)
inclusive,
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No. 2:11-CV-02098-JAM-KJN
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6).
21
This matter is before the Court on Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
22
(―Wells Fargo‖) and U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee for WFMBS 2005-
23
AR12’s (―U.S. Bank‖) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint
24
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (―MTD‖) (Doc.
25
#10).
26
Servicing Solutions (―First American‖) (Doc. #12) (Wells Fargo and
27
U.S. Bank are collectively referred to as ―Defendants‖).
28
Defendants also submitted a Request for Judicial Notice (Doc.#11).
The motion is joined by Defendant First American Trustee
1
1
Plaintiffs Billi Vogan and Harold Traupel (collectively
2
―Plaintiffs‖) oppose the motion (―Opposition‖) (Doc. #16).
3
4
5
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
This action is predicated on the non-judicial foreclosure of
6
Plaintiffs’ home, located at 20066 Wildwood West Drive, Penn
7
Valley, California (―the Property‖), by Defendants.
8
the successor to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage was the original lender
9
and was servicer for the loan at all relevant times.
MTD, at 1.
Wells Fargo as
The loan
10
originated on June 29, 2004.
Plaintiffs were current
11
on their payments up until at least August 2010.
12
stopped paying their mortgage sometime after that, and First
13
American, acting on Wells Fargo’s behalf, recorded a notice of
14
default on the property on December 14, 2010.
15
Fargo did not substitute First American as trustee until January 4,
16
2011, which was after First American filed the Notice of Default
17
against the property.
Plaintiffs
MTD, at 1.
Wells
MTD, at 1.
18
Prior to defaulting on their loan, Plaintiffs allege that they
19
attempted to contact Wells Fargo to obtain a modification in August
20
2010.
21
that they qualified for a modification, so long as they were in
22
default for at least three months.
23
defaulted in order to qualify that Wells Fargo allegedly informed
24
them that their loan was owned by an investor that did not engage
25
in mortgage modification.
26
to verify the note associated with their mortgage, and the
27
documentation produced by Wells Fargo indicated that Wells Fargo
28
still owned the loan.
Compl., at 16.
First, Wells Fargo allegedly told Plaintiffs
Id.
Id.
It was only after they
Plaintiffs then asked Wells Fargo
Compl., Ex. B.
2
1
The parties dispute what occurred as far as ownership of the
2
loan.
Plaintiffs claim that the loan was sold to someone who is
3
not yet identified at an unknown time.
4
claim that the loan was sold to U.S. Bank as trustee of a mortgage
5
backed security (―MBS‖) named WFMBS 2005-AR12 on January 11, 2011.
6
MTD, at 1-2.
7
2005-AR12 has a closing date of June 16, 2005, which according to
8
the Pooled Security Agreement (―PSA‖) governing administration of
9
the security is the cut-off date for adding additional property to
Opp., at 2-3.
Defendants
Plaintiffs respond with the allegation that WFMBS
10
the WFMBS 2005-AR12 trust.
11
that the officer who executed the assignment to U.S. Bank on behalf
12
of Wells Fargo was actually a First American employee.
13
11.
14
MBS, that the loan was never actually sold to U.S. Bank as trustee
15
for WFMBS 2005-AR12, and that the assignment of interest recorded
16
on January 11, 2011 was recorded to deceive Plaintiffs as to who
17
owned their loan and who was authorized to foreclose.
18
Opp., at 2-3.
Plaintiffs also allege
Compl., at
Plaintiffs further allege, relying on the closing date for the
Opp., at 3.
Plaintiffs filed this federal complaint after their state
19
court complaint was twice dismissed pursuant to Defendants’
20
demurrers.
21
Defendants violated federal law just prior to filing their federal
22
complaint, which is why they dismissed the state court complaint
23
and re-filed in the Eastern District.
24
Plaintiffs claim that they only discovered that
Opp., at 1.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint brings ten causes of action against
25
various defendants: (1) Declaratory relief as to the rights and
26
obligations of Plaintiffs and all defendants with regard to the
27
Property and Plaintiffs’ mortgage; (2) Negligence against all
28
defendants; (3) Quasi-Contract against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank;
3
1
(4) Unfair Competition under California Business & Professions Code
2
§ 17200 against all defendants; (5) violation of the Truth in
3
Lending Act (―TILA‖), 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) against U.S. Bank;
4
(6) Accounting against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank; (7) Constructive
5
trust against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank; (8) Wrongful foreclosure
6
seeking to set aside Trustee’s Sale against all defendants; (9) To
7
void or cancel trustee’s deed upon sale against U.S. Bank and First
8
American; and (10) Quiet Title against U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo.
9
The Court has jurisdiction over the TILA claim against U.S.
10
Bank pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The Court has jurisdiction in
11
its discretion over the remaining state law claims if they are
12
pendent from the federal TILA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
13
The Court held a hearing on this motion on November 2, 2011.
14
At that hearing, the Court granted First American’s motion to
15
dismiss with prejudice.
16
17
II.
OPINION
18
A.
Legal Standard
19
A party may move to dismiss an action for failure to state a
20
claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
21
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
22
court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true and draw
23
all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
24
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other grounds by
25
Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319,
26
322 (1972).
27
are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
28
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
In considering a motion to dismiss, the
Scheuer v.
Assertions that are mere ―legal conclusions,‖ however,
4
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
1
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
2
plaintiff needs to plead ―enough facts to state a claim to relief
3
that is plausible on its face.‖
4
Dismissal is appropriate where the plaintiff fails to state a claim
5
supportable by a cognizable legal theory.
6
Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
7
To survive a motion to dismiss, a
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Balistreri v. Pacifica
Upon granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
8
claim, the court has discretion to allow leave to amend the
9
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).
10
―Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not
11
appropriate unless it is clear . . . that the complaint could not
12
be saved by amendment.‖
13
316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
Eminence Capital, L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc.,
14
B.
Request for Judicial Notice
15
Defendants filed a Request for Judicial Notice.
They ask the
16
Court to take judicial notice of 12 publicly recorded or filed
17
documents related to the non-judicial foreclosure process on
18
Plaintiff’s property and the resulting state court lawsuit.
19
at 2-3.
20
asks the Court to accept the contents of the documents as true.
21
Opp., at 4.
RJN,
Plaintiffs oppose the motion only to the extent that it
22
Generally, a court may not consider material beyond the
23
pleadings in ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
24
claim.
25
the complaint so long as authenticity is not disputed, or matters
26
of public record, provided that they are not subject to reasonable
27
dispute.
The exceptions are material attached to, or relied on by,
E.g., Sherman v. Stryker Corp., 2009 WL 2241664 at *2
28
5
1
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250
2
F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) and Fed. R. Evid. 201).
3
In this case, the items provided by Defendants are the proper
4
subject of judicial notice so long as they are not reasonably
5
subject to dispute.
6
two of the exhibits are in dispute: (1) Substitution of Trustee
7
dated January 4, 2011 (RJN Ex. C), and (2) Assignment of Deed of
8
Trust dated January 6, 2011 (RJN Ex. D).
9
Judicial Notice of the other exhibits, and Defendants’ request is
Based on the above discussion, the contents of
It is appropriate to take
10
GRANTED with respect to those exhibits.
11
dispute as to the contents of Exhibits C and D, Defendants’ request
12
for judicial notice of those two exhibits is DENIED.
13
14
15
C.
Due to the reasonable
Motion to Dismiss
1.
The TILA Claim Against U.S. Bank
Plaintiffs’ sole federal claim is against U.S. Bank for
16
allegedly violating a provision of TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).
17
Bank seeks dismissal of this claim on the grounds that as a trustee
18
for a mortgage backed security, TILA does not apply to it.
19
Defendants also seek dismissal by arguing that Plaintiffs failed to
20
plead damages arising from a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).
21
the following reasons, the Court finds that U.S. Bank as trustee
22
for WFMBS 2005-AR12 may be subject to liability arising from a
23
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) and therefore Defendants’ motion
24
to dismiss this claim must be denied.
25
U.S.
For
15 U.S.C. § 1641(g), titled ―Liability of Assignees,‖ requires
26
that when an entity purchases or is assigned the beneficial
27
interest in a loan on a property, it must notify the borrower in
28
writing within 30 days of when the loan is transferred.
6
15 U.S.C.
1
§ 1641(g).
2
the assignee’s notice must contain.
3
to the ―new owner or assignee of the debt.
4
15 U.S.C. § 1640 authorizes a civil action for violations of § 1641
5
for (1) actual damages, or (2) statutory damages that may included
6
(a) damages equal to twice the amount of any finance charge or
7
(b) for a credit transaction secured by real property an amount not
8
less than $400 and not greater than $4000.
9
10
Subsection (g) lists the particular information that
a)
This subsection only applies
15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).
15 U.S.C. § 1640(a).
Application of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) to Trustees
U.S. Bank argues that as a general rule, trustees are not
11
subject to TILA in California because trustees have limited
12
liability in California’s non-judicial foreclosure process.
13
Plaintiffs respond that U.S. Bank cannot both foreclose on their
14
home, thereby claiming a beneficial interest in the note securing
15
Plaintiffs’ loan, and simultaneously claim that it is not a
16
creditor subject to TILA’s provisions.
17
Under California law, the trustee of a deed of trust has no
18
beneficial interest in the mortgage associated with the deed of
19
trust.
20
Rptr. 3d 510, 514 (Ct. App. 2007).
21
has only two duties: (1) to foreclose the deed of trust upon
22
default, or (2) when the secured debt is satisfied to convey the
23
deed of trust to the borrower.
24
lack of beneficial interest assigned to the trustee of a deed of
25
trust, federal courts in California hold that TILA does not apply
26
to the trustee of a deed of trust.
27
Lending, Inc., No. CV F 08-1878 LJO GSA, 2009 WL 926973, at *4
28
(E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2009) (holding that TILA does not apply to the
Heritage Oaks Partners v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 66 Cal.
Id.
7
The trustee for a deed of trust
Due to the limited duties and
Guerrero v. Citi Residential
1
trustee of a deed of trust and explaining that the limited role of
2
such a trustee under California law precludes TILA liability).
3
U.S. Bank’s argument conflates the trustee of a deed of trust
4
with other types of trustees.
To support their position, U.S. Bank
5
cites Wilson v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. C 11–03394 CRB, 2011 WL
6
3443635, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011).
7
Bank’s position but is without citation to any Ninth Circuit
8
authority.
9
CRB, 2011 WL 724390 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011)).
Wilson does support U.S.
Id. (citing Hargis v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. C 10-02341
The Hargis case
10
cited by the Wilson court involves the trustee of a deed of trust,
11
not a traditional trustee or as in this case the trustee of a
12
mortgage backed security.
13
appears that the Wilson court failed to note the distinction
14
between a trustee of a deed of trust and the trustee of a mortgage
15
backed security, as well as the basis for the rule exempting the
16
trustee of a deed of trust from TILA.
17
trust is exempt from TILA because of its limited role under
18
California law, but there is no analogous reason to exempt other
19
types of trustees from TILA’s provisions.
20
Hargis, 2011 WL 724390, at *2.
It
The trustee of a deed of
The potential breadth of U.S. Bank’s position is easily
21
illustrated by hypothetically granting limited liability to a
22
common law trustee.
23
subject to personal liability to third persons on obligations
24
incurred in the administration of the trust to the same extent that
25
he would be liable if he held the property free of trust.‖
26
Restatement (2d) of Trusts § 261.
27
stark contrast between the duties of the trustee of a deed of
28
trust, as limited by California law, and those of a common law
Under the common law of trusts, a ―trustee is
8
This common law rule shows a
1
trustee.
2
is responsible for omissions related to the administration of that
3
property.
4
acting as lenders to completely evade TILA’s provisions.
5
A traditional trustee holds title to trust property and
Exempting all trustees from TILA would permit trusts
Further, as Plaintiffs point out, U.S. Bank was assigned the
6
ownership interest in the loan by the January 11, 2011 assignment,
7
meaning that U.S. Bank is Wells Fargo’s purported assignee.
8
at 2.
9
1641(g), which creates liability for the assignees of the loan’s
10
original creditor if the assignee fails to notify the borrower of
11
the acquisition.
12
MTD,
As an assignee, U.S. Bank falls squarely within 15 U.S.C. §
15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).
The Court declines to follow the Wilson court’s decision with
13
respect to TILA liability of trustees.
14
trust enjoys limited liability because it only has two duties in
15
the California statutory foreclosure process, but there is no legal
16
basis to support a holding that limits the liability of all
17
trustees in this manner.
18
Plaintiffs have properly alleged that U.S. Bank as trustee for
19
WFMBS 2005-AR12, a mortgage-backed-security, is liable for
20
violations of TILA.
21
22
b)
The trustee of a deed of
Accordingly, the Court finds that
Damages Pleaded by Plaintiffs
U.S. Bank argues that Plaintiffs must plead actual damages to
23
state a claim, and that the actual damages pleaded in the complaint
24
do not meet the appropriate pleading standard.
25
Plaintiffs respond that a 1641(g) claimant may recover actual
26
damages, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and that they
27
appropriately pleaded all three types of damages.
28
MTD, at 2-3.
Opp., at 8.
15 U.S.C. § 1640(a) authorizes claims for actual damages,
9
1
statutory damages, and attorneys fees for violations of 15 U.S.C.
2
§ 1641(g).
3
1092-PK, 2010 WL 3945117, at *6-*7 (D. Or. Apr. 6, 2010)
4
(acknowledging all three types of damages are authorized by § 1640
5
against original creditor’s assignee).
6
Russell v. Mortgage Solutions Mgmt., —Inc., No. CV 08-
In this case, Plaintiffs pleaded that U.S. Bank’s violation of
7
§ 1641(g) caused their home to be foreclosed, presumably because
8
they were unable to contact their actual creditor to negotiate a
9
modification of their loan as they explained in another part of
10
their complaint.
11
to hire an attorney in order to determine who held their loan.
12
Finally, Plaintiffs pleaded that U.S. Bank is subject to statutory
13
damages and fees.
14
of these damages, Plaintiffs have not pleaded a causal connection
15
between the alleged § 1641(g) violation and their actual damages
16
because the event precipitating the foreclosure was their default,
17
not a lack of notice as to who owned the loan.
18
that they were unable to make the required payments on the loan
19
without receiving a modification, and they do not plead that a
20
modification is legally required.
21
plaintiffs are not entitled to actual damages based on the
22
allegations in their Complaint, they did adequately plead that they
23
are entitled to attorneys’ fees and statutory damages.
24
Compl., at 28.
Id.
They also pleaded that they had
Id.
The Court notes that despite pleading all
Plaintiffs admit
Compl., at 16.
Even if
Plaintiffs pleaded a claim arising out of U.S. Bank’s alleged
25
violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) and damages associated with that
26
claim, making dismissal at this stage improper.
27
Bank’s motion to dismiss this claim is DENIED.
28
10
As a result, U.S.
1
2.
2
Plaintiffs’ State Law Claims
a)
3
Jurisdiction
Defendants argue that the Court does not have federal question
4
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs’
5
federal TILA claim is not a valid claim.
6
the Court does have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 over
7
the federal TILA claim and jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
8
§ 1367 over the pendant state law claims.
Plaintiffs respond that
9
As discussed above, Plaintiffs did plead a valid federal claim
10
giving the Court jurisdiction over that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
11
§ 1331.
12
over pendant state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
13
The Court may, in its discretion, exercise jurisdiction
The Court finds that the remaining state law claims are all
14
pendant from the federal TILA claim.
15
out of the origination, sale, default, and foreclosure of the note
16
securing the loan used to purchase the Property.
17
Court asserts jurisdiction over the state law claims and decides
18
Defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims as follows.
19
b)
20
The state law claims arise
Accordingly, the
Negligence Against All Defendants
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a
21
negligence cause of action.
22
that no defendant owes Plaintiffs a legal duty, which is the second
23
element in a prima facie negligence case.
24
Defendants argue that California does not permit recovery in
25
negligence absent a physical injury to person or property.
26
8.
27
28
MTD, at 7-8.
Specifically, they claim
Id.
Additionally,
Id. at
Plaintiffs do not respond to Defendants’ arguments in their
Opposition.
The Court interprets Plaintiffs’ failure to respond as
11
1
a concession to Defendants’ arguments concerning this claim.
2
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss
3
Plaintiffs’ negligence claim with prejudice.
4
c)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Violation of Business and Professions Code
§ 17200, et seq. Against All Defendants
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to plead that any
conduct is ―unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent‖ as required for
violations of the § 17200 unfair competition law (―UCL‖).
8-9.
MTD, at
Plaintiffs respond that they adequately pleaded violations
sufficient to satisfy each of the three varieties of UCL claims
with respect to Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank.
―The purpose of the UCL is to protect both consumers and
competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for
goods and services.‖
Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass'n, 106
Cal. Rptr. 3d 46, 49 (Ct. App. 2010) (internal citations omitted).
―The California Supreme Court held that the UCL establishes three
varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are
[1] unlawful, or [2] unfair, or [3] fraudulent.‖
Id. at 50.
Since
the UCL is written in the disjunctive, a business act or practice
may be alleged to be all or any of the three varieties.
Berryman
v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177, 185 (Ct. App.
2007).
In order to state a claim under the unlawful prong, a
plaintiff must allege facts that show that anything that can
reasonably be characterized as a business practice is also a
violation of law.
California v. McKale, 25 Cal.3d 626, 632 (1979).
To show a violation under the fraudulent prong, a plaintiff must
show that members of the public are likely to be deceived by the
practice.
Weinstat v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 614,
12
1
622 n. 8 (Ct. App. 2010).
2
demonstrate that the representations or nondisclosures in question
3
would likely be misleading to a reasonable consumer.‖
4
Finally, under the unfair prong, three different tests are
5
currently used by California courts to determine if a practice is
6
unfair.
7
―A plaintiff's burden thus is to
Id.
Drum, 106 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 53.
In this case, Plaintiffs pleaded that U.S. Bank failed to
8
comply with TILA § 1641(g), as discussed above.
9
Bank violated TILA is sufficient to maintain a UCL claim against
10
Pleading that U.S.
U.S. Bank under the unlawful aspect of the UCL.
11
Plaintiffs also pleaded that Wells Fargo recorded a fabricated
12
assignment of deed of trust assigning interest in Plaintiffs’ loan
13
to U.S. Bank. Compl., at 14-16.
14
alleged that the recorded assignment was executed well after the
15
closing date of the MBS to which it was allegedly sold, giving rise
16
to a plausible inference that at least some part of the recorded
17
assignment was fabricated.
18
proven, constitutes a violation of Cal. Penal Code § 532f(a)(4).
19
Compl., at 24.
20
document related to a mortgage loan transaction with the county
21
recorder’s office that is known to be false, with the intent to
22
defraud.
23
As discussed above, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs allege that such conduct, if
That section prohibits any person from filing a
Cal. Penal Code § 532f(a)(4).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank’s
24
motion to dismiss this claim.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
13
1
d)
2
3
4
5
The Requirement to Plead Tender with Respect to
the Following Claims: Claim 3) Quasi-Contract,
Claim 7) Constructive Trust, Claim 8) Wrongful
Foreclosure and to Set Aside Trustee’s Sale,
Claim 9) Voiding the Trustee’s Deed, Claim 10)
Quiet Title
Defendants argue that any claim related to a foreclosure that
6
arises in equity must be accompanied by Plaintiffs’ credible
7
allegation of tender.
8
must only allege tender, which they claim to have done, and that
9
tender is not required when the validity of the underlying debt is
10
11
attacked.
MTD, at 10.
Plaintiffs respond that they
Opp., at 11.
A plaintiff is required to allege tender of the full
12
outstanding loan amount in order to maintain any cause of action
13
for irregularity in the non-judicial foreclosure sale procedure.
14
Abdallah v. United Sav. Bank, 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109 (1996).
15
―[T]he tender rule is not absolute, and a tender may not be
16
required where it is inequitable to do so.‖
17
Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., No. CV 11–1658 AHM (CWx), 2011 WL
18
2533029, at *10 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2011) (citing Onofrio v. Rice,
19
55 Cal.App.4th 413, 424, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 (1997)).
20
action attacks the validity of the underlying debt, a tender is not
21
required since it would constitute an affirmative of the debt.‖
22
Onofrio, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 74.
23
Sacchi v. Mortgage
―Also, if the
Plaintiffs do not adequately plead full tender as required to
24
attack an irregularity in the foreclosure process.
25
that they were willing to make modified payments on their loan.
26
Compl., at 16.
27
28
They only plead
On the other hand, Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo
represented itself as the owner of Plaintiffs’ mortgage, but then
14
1
represented that it had already sold the loan to a third party.
2
Compl., at 16.
3
assignment of their loan to an MBS that was prohibited from
4
accepting it because its closing date was over 5 years prior to the
5
assignment.
6
allege that Wells Fargo as the servicer reported to Plaintiffs that
7
it still owned the loan, even though U.S. Bank was foreclosing and
8
Wells Fargo previously recorded an assignment to U.S. Bank.
9
Compl., Ex. B.
Then, Plaintiffs allege, Wells Fargo recorded an
Compl., at 17.
Further, on May 26, 2011, Plaintiffs
Based on these alleged facts, Plaintiffs claim that
10
U.S. Bank does not own their loan, despite the fact that U.S. Bank
11
acted as the foreclosing beneficiary under the deed of trust.
12
Plaintiffs are not saying that U.S. Bank failed to follow the
13
letter of California’s statutory foreclosure law; they are claiming
14
that U.S. Bank did not have standing to foreclose in the first
15
place.
16
the full amount of the indebtedness to an entity, U.S. Bank, that
17
is allegedly not the beneficiary to the deed of trust in order to
18
protect Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property would be inequitable.
19
Thus, relying on Onofrio, requiring Plaintiffs to tender
Defendants U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo’s only ground for seeking
20
dismissal on these causes of action is the tender requirement.
The
21
Court holds that the tender requirement does not apply to this case
22
because Plaintiffs are challenging the beneficial interest held by
23
U.S. Bank in the deed of trust, not the procedural sufficiency of
24
the foreclosure itself.
25
Fargo’s motion to dismiss these claims because Plaintiffs failed to
26
plead tender is DENIED.
27
///
28
///
For this reason, U.S. Bank and Wells
15
1
e)
2
3
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss The Remaining
Causes of Action: Claim 1) Declaratory Relief
Against All Defendants and Claim 6) Accounting
Against U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo
4
Defendants argue that both remaining causes of action are
5
duplicative of the other causes of action because they are remedial
6
in nature, and are not sufficient to be standalone causes of
7
action.
8
cause of action, but generally argue that the declaratory relief
9
claim is sufficient because deciding it will clarify and settle the
10
MTD, at 12.
dispute and relieve uncertainty.
(1)
11
12
Plaintiffs do not address the accounting
Opp., at 13.
Declaratory Relief
A claim for declaratory relief is duplicative and unnecessary
13
when it is commensurate with the relief sought through other causes
14
of action.
15
708 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
16
Mangindin v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 637 F. Supp. 2d 700, 707–
In this case, Plaintiffs put forward other claims, that if
17
decided, will resolve the remaining controversies between the
18
parties and relieve any uncertainty related to the Property.
19
Plaintiffs only argument in support of the claim for declaratory
20
relief is that Defendants claim an interest in the property and
21
will sell the home to another party.
22
Foreclosure and Quiet Title claims are decided, however,
23
Defendants’ interest in the property will be resolved.
24
Opp., at 13.
If the Wrongful
For this reason, the claim for declaratory relief is
25
duplicative of the other claims asserted, and Defendants’ motion to
26
dismiss it is GRANTED with prejudice.
27
28
(2)
Accounting
Defendants seek dismissal of this cause of action on the
16
1
grounds that the claim is merely remedial as pleaded and therefore
2
duplicative of Plaintiffs’ other claims.
3
to this argument in their Opposition.
4
motion to dismiss this claim is GRANTED with prejudice.
Plaintiffs do not respond
Accordingly, Defendants’
5
6
III. ORDER
7
After carefully considering the papers submitted in this
8
matter and the argument of counsel at the hearing on this motion,
9
it is hereby ordered that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
in part, as follows:
1.
Plaintiffs’ claim for negligence against Defendants is
dismissed with prejudice;
2.
Plaintiffs’
claims
for
declaratory
relief
and
accounting against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice; and
3.
The Court’s previous Order dismissing with prejudice all
remaining claims against First American is reaffirmed.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ remaining claims is
18
DENIED.
19
Complaint within twenty (20) days of this Order.
20
21
an
Defendants shall file their answers to Plaintiffs’
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2011
____________________________
JOHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
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?