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)

Download PDF
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

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?