McMahon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 5/25/2017 ORDERING 44 The Court STRIKES lines 21-28 on page 6; lines 1 through 5 on page 7; and the word "second" on line 4 on page 13 of the Court's 4/26/17 Order. McMahon may proceed against SPS on his second and fifth through seventh claims. SPS shall file its Amended Answer to the FAC within fifteen days of the date of this Order. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GORDON MCMAHON, an
individual;

No.

2:16-cv-1459-JAM-KJN

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
17

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 20
inclusive,

ORDER AMENDING APRIL 26, 2017
ORDER ON SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING INC’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

Defendants.

18
19

On April 26, 2017 this Court issued its Order (“4/26/17

20

Order”) granting in part and denying in part Defendant Select

21

Portfolio Servicing’s (“SPS”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Gordon

22

McMahon’s (“McMahon”) First Amendment Complaint.

23

ECF No. 44.

In that Order, the Court dismissed McMahon’s second claim

24

for violation of the the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) at

25

15 U.S.C. § 1691(d)(1) with prejudice on the grounds that the

26

ECOA’s notice requirements do not apply when the applicant is

27

delinquent or otherwise in default.

28

Court found that McMahon had already defaulted when he submitted
1

4/26/17 Order at 6.

The

1

his loan modification to SPS.

2

Id. at 7.

Upon review of the briefs filed in support of and in

3

opposition to Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank’s motion to dismiss

4

in this case, the Court now recognizes that its ruling on

5

McMahon’s ECOA claim against SPS should be reconsidered and

6

vacated.

7

first raised in SPS’ reply brief in support of its motion to

8

dismiss.

9

to respond to this argument and the Court should not have given

First, SPS’ argument upon which the Court relied was

ECF No. 41 at 3-4. McMahon therefore had no opportunity

10

it any consideration. Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th

11

Cir. 2007).

12

opposition to JP Morgan Chase’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 45 at

13

7-9, and based on that response, and for the following reasons,

14

the Court now finds that it should not have dismissed McMahon’s

15

ECOA claim against SPS.

16

Second, McMahon did respond to this argument in his

In MacDonald v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A, 2015 WL 1886000, at *3

17

(N.D.

18

Cal.

Apr.

24,

1691(d)(1)

does

not

19

Therefore,

on

20

applicants that are ‘delinquent or otherwise in default’ would

21

appear to impact only the entitlement to a statement of reasons

22

upon denial, not a determination on an application within thirty

23

days.”

24

stated that few courts have discussed “whether the exceptions to

25

the definition of ‘adverse action’ in Section 1691(d)(6) apply to

26

the word “action” as used in Section 1691(d)(1) . . . [but] [a]t

27

least two courts have found that applicants are entitled to a

28

determination on their application with[in] thirty days whether

its

2015),

the

contain

face,

court

the

Section

stated

words

2

‘adverse

1691(d)(6)’s

MacDonald, 2015 WL 188600, at *3.

that

“Section
action.’

exclusion

for

MacDonald further

1

or not they defaulted on their existing loan obligations.”

2

MacDonald held an allegation that the servicer failed to give the

3

borrower notice of their action within thirty days of receiving

4

the completed application “is sufficient to state a claim under

5

§ 1691(d)(1), even though Plaintiffs were in [default] at the

6

time.”

7

Id.

Id. at *4.

Thus, the Court finds that SPS’s motion to dismiss McMahon’s

8

ECOA claim simply because he had already defaulted before

9

submitting his loan application to SPS must be denied.

The Court

10

now turns to SPS’s other argument in support of its motion to

11

dismiss McMahon’s ECOA claim.

12

SPS’ second reason as to why it believes McMahon’s ECOA

13

claim should be dismissed is that “Plaintiff has not alleged that

14

he was not [sic] a member of a protected claim based on ‘race,

15

color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age .

16

. . In other words, Plaintiff fails to state facts demonstrating

17

he was denied pursuant to some discriminatory practice of SPS.”

18

Mot. at 7.

19

The Court finds that this argument also lacks merit.

20

District courts in the Ninth Circuit have found “the [ECOA’s]

21

notice provisions to give rise to a cause of action even with no

22

accompanying claims of discrimination.”

23

4662015, at *4 (citing Errico v. Pac. Capital Bank, N.A., 753 F.

24

Supp. 2d 1034, 1042 (N.D. Cal. 2010); Vasquez, 2013 WL 6001924,

25

at *11).

26

him or that he was in a protected class in order to to state an

27

ECOA claim.

28

Cooksey, 2014 WL

Thus, McMahon need not allege SPS discriminated against

Having found that both of SPS’ arguments in support of its
3

1

motion to dismiss this claim fail, the Court vacates its prior

2

ruling dismissing this claim with prejudice and instead denies

3

SPS’s motion to dismiss McMahon second claim for violation of the

4

ECOA at 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d)(1).

5

The Court strikes lines 21-28 on page 6; lines 1 through 5

6

on page 7; and the word “second” on line 4 on page 13 of the

7

Court’s 4/26/17 Order.

8

second and fifth through seventh claims. SPS shall file its

9

Amended Answer to the FAC within fifteen days of the date of this

10
11
12

McMahon may proceed against SPS on his

Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 25, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4