Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Valentino et al
Filing
37
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 35 5 18 19 23 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/20/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
13
14
15
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiffs,
11
12
No. C 12-0334 SI
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,
v.
ABRAHAM VALENTINO; JOHN CHU;
CORPORATE COUNSEL LAW GROUP LLP;
NESZHAO CONSULTING COMPANY, LLC;
KEVIN NESBITT
Defendants.
/
16
17
This matter concerns a dispute between loan servicing company Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
18
(“SPS”) and the owners, and several other affiliated parties, of a residential property. Defendants
19
Neszhao Consulting Co. (“Neszhao”) and Kevin Nesbitt (“Nesbitt”), prospective short sale purchasers
20
of the property, have filed motions to dismiss pursuant to both Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) as
21
well as a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement in the alternative. Defendants John Chu
22
(“Chu”) and Corporate Counsel Law Group LLP (“CCLG”) have filed a separate motion to dismiss
23
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and a special motion to strike the Complaint pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code
24
§ 425.16. Defendant Valentino has moved to join defendants Chu and CCLG’s motion to dismiss.
25
A hearing was held on the matter on April 20, 2012. As discussed at that hearing, the Court
26
GRANTS defendants Neszhao and Nesbitt’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint WITH LEAVE
27
TO AMEND, because plaintiff has not pled the allegations of fraud with sufficient particularity as
28
required by Fed. R. Civ. P 9(b). Upon amendment, plaintiff should identify with particularity the
1
circumstances surrounding the two sets of purported short sale documents, which defendants engaged
2
in what conduct, and how, considering the fact that the anticipated short sale was never consummated,
3
SPS has been injured by defendants’ alleged conduct. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be filed
4
no later than April 30, 2012.
5
Defendants Neszhao and Nesbitt’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) for
6
failure to join U.S. Bank as a necessary is DENIED, as the Court finds that U.S. Bank is not a necessary
7
party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a).
All other motions brought by defendants, including defendants Neszhao and Nesbitt’s motion
9
for a more definite statement and defendants Chu and CCLG’s motion to dismiss and special motion
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
to strike the Complaint, are DENIED as moot and without prejudice. Defendant Valentino’s motion to
11
join Chu and CCLG’s motions is GRANTED. If, after amendment, defendants Chu, CCLG, and
12
Valentino believe the amended complaint to be subject to the same attacks currently leveled against the
13
complaint, they may raise their arguments again in a subsequent motion to dismiss.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated: April 20, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?