Nunez et al v. Bank of America, N.A.
Filing
27
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING. Granting 24 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
NUNEZ, EMMANUEL & ARLEEN,
No. C 11-0081 MMC
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING
HEARING
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants
/
14
15
Before the Court is defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s (“Bank of America”) motion,
16
filed May 3, 2011, to dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiffs
17
Emmanuel Nunez and Arleen Nunez (collectively, “plaintiffs”) have filed opposition. Having
18
read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the
19
Court hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 10, 2011 and rules as follows.
20
By order filed March 22, 2011, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint on
21
the grounds that the asserted claims arising from the origination of their mortgage with
22
Bank of America in April 2006 were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that
23
plaintiffs’ remaining claims were insufficiently supported by factual allegations. (See Order
24
Granting Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Order”).) By that same order, plaintiffs were afforded
25
leave to amend to cure the deficiencies noted. (See id. at 5, 7.) The SAC, however, fails
26
to cure the previous complaint’s deficiencies.
27
28
First, with respect to all claims arising from the origination of the mortgage, plaintiffs’
new allegations are insufficient to plead a basis for equitable tolling of the statute of
1
2
limitations.
In particular, plaintiffs now allege that their “native language is Tagalog” and that
3
Bank of America “failed to provide an appropriate translator.” (See SAC ¶ 51.) Although
4
said allegations are new to the complaint, plaintiffs had made the same assertions in their
5
opposition to Bank of America’s prior motion to dismiss, and the Court, in its prior order of
6
dismissal, had noted such circumstances, without more, were unavailing. (See Order at 4
7
n.3 (citing Herrera v. Countryside KB Home Loans, No. 10-CV-0902-LHK, 2010 WL
8
3516100, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (finding, although plaintiffs spoke Tagalog and were not
9
native English-speakers, plaintiffs not entitled to tolling of statute of limitations in TILA
10
action, where plaintiffs failed to plead date on which they discovered alleged violations or to
11
allege facts showing how defendant’s nondisclosure prevented plaintiffs from discovering
12
alleged violations)).)
13
The SAC adds nothing to plaintiffs’ earlier assertion. Based on the allegations in the
14
SAC, the facts underlying plaintiffs’ claims would have been apparent from the face of the
15
loan documents, and plaintiffs plead no facts showing due diligence such as to warrant
16
equitable tolling.1 See King v. State of Cal., 784 F.2d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 1986) (finding, in
17
TILA action, equitable tolling available to “suspend the limitations period until the borrower
18
discovers or had reasonable opportunity to discover the fraud or nondisclosures that form
19
the basis of the TILA action”); Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 920-921
20
(2005) (holding “a plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be
21
barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the
22
time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite
23
reasonable diligence” (emphasis in original)).
24
25
Second, to the extent plaintiffs’ claims are not based on the origination of the
mortgage, plaintiffs’ amendments likewise fail to cure the deficiencies noted in their prior
26
1
27
28
In contrast to the complaint at issue in the case cited by plaintiffs, Galindo v.
Financo Fin., Inc., No. C 07-3991 WHA, 2008 WL 4452344, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2008),
plaintiffs do not allege they cannot read and the lender made oral representations
inconsistent with the written documents.
2
1
pleading.
In particular, with respect to their fraud claim, plaintiffs’ revision of the basis of such
2
3
cause of action, which, as now alleged, is Bank of America’s refusal to grant a loan
4
modification in October 2010 (see SAC ¶ 63), is unavailing. Plaintiffs cannot rely on their
5
conclusory allegation that Bank of America “intentional[ly] inflat[ed] [p]laintiffs’ expense[s]
6
by $5,000 per month.” (See SAC ¶ 63); Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (providing “party must state
7
with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud”). Moreover, and more significantly,
8
plaintiffs allege no action taken by them in reliance thereon, and, indeed, plaintiffs allege
9
they “notified [d]efendants of the inflated expenses.” (See SAC ¶ 65); Engalla v.
10
Permanente Medical Group, 15 Cal. 4th 951, 974 (1997) (holding, to state claim for fraud,
11
plaintiff must allege (1) misrepresentation, (2) defendant’s knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to
12
defraud, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) damage).
Similarly unavailing is plaintiffs’ revision of the basis of their claim under California
13
14
Civil Code § 2923.5, which, as now alleged, is Bank of America’s refusal to grant a loan
15
modification. See Mabry v. Superior Ct., 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 231 (Cal. App. Ct. 2010)
16
(holding “there is no right . . . under [§ 2923.5] to a loan modification”).
17
Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations, which do not differ materially from those found
18
insufficient in the Amended Complaint, are, for the reasons stated in the Court’s prior order
19
of dismissal, insufficient to plead the claims they are alleged to support.
20
As the SAC represents plaintiffs’ third attempt to plead a viable claim, and as
21
plaintiffs have come no closer to doing so, the Court finds further leave to amend would be
22
futile.
23
24
25
For the reasons stated above, Bank of America’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: June 2, 2011
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
27
28
3
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?