Pierce v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al
Filing
26
Order by Hon. Samuel Conti GRANTING 8 Motion to Dismiss and 11 Motion to Dismiss Without Leave to Amend, and DENYING AS MOOT 25 Motion for Order Shortening Time. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
JAMES PIERCE,
8
Plaintiff,
v.
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
9
11
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; ACQURA LOAN
SERVICES; CASTLE PEAK 2010-1 LOAN
TRUST,
12
13
Defendants.
14
15
) Case No. 12-4795-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
) DISMISS AND DISMISSING CASE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
For the reasons set forth below, the instant case is hereby
16
DISMISSED.
17
the pending ex parte application for an order shortening time to be
18
heard, ECF No. 25 ("MOST"), is DENIED AS MOOT.
19
Because the Court decides this matter on the papers,
On June 22, 2012, James Pierce initiated this case by filing a
20
complaint in California Superior Court.
21
removal ("NOR")) Ex. A ("Compl.").
22
forth six causes of action, articulated as follows: (1) General
23
Negligence, (2) Intentional Tort, (3) Set Aside Trustee's Sale, (4)
24
Violation of United States Code, Title 11, Bankruptcy Laws, (5)
25
Preliminary Injunction, and (6) Declaratory Relief.
ECF No. 1 (notice of
Plaintiff's complaint sets
Compl. at 7.1
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff filed his complaint on pre-printed California Judicial
Council forms. Because the forms lack page numbers, citations to
the complaint use the page numbers assigned by this Court's
electronic filing system.
1
On September 13, 2012, Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. ("Citi")
2
removed the case to this Court.2
The defendants in this case have filed two motions to dismiss,
3
4
the first by Citi, ECF No. 8 ("Citi MTD"), and the other by co-
5
defendants Acqura Loan Services ("Acqura") and Castle Peak 2010-1
6
Loan Trust ("Castle Peak"), ECF No. 11 ("ACP MTD").3
Both motions tell the same story4: Following the foreclosure
7
8
of Plaintiff's residential mortgage, the property securing the
9
mortgage was sold at a trustee sale.
The trustee sale occurred
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
sometime after 2:00 p.m. on January 12, 2012.
However, at 12:27
11
p.m. that day, no more than a few hours before the sale occurred,
12
Plaintiff had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
13
that his eleventh-hour bankruptcy filing resulted in an automatic
Plaintiff contends
14
2
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court notes that Citi's notice of removal is procedurally
defective. Defendants have only thirty days to remove after
receiving the complaint "through service or otherwise." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(b). Citi's notice of removal indicates that it "learned of
this action through informal means and has not been served with
process in this case." NOR ¶ 2. Citi does not indicate, however,
when it learned of the action. See id. Accordingly, the Court
cannot determine whether removal was timely. Nevertheless, the
Court retains jurisdiction because the defect is not jurisdictional
and Plaintiff waived his right to contest removal by failing to
move for remand within thirty days of removal. See 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c) ("A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect
other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within
30 days after the filing of the notice of removal . . . ."). The
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because
Plaintiff's complaint sets forth a claim under Title 11, i.e.,
under federal bankruptcy law. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 (giving
district courts original jurisdiction over "all cases under title
11"), 1441 (permitting removal of civil actions over which district
courts have original jurisdiction).
3
Plaintiff filed an opposition addressing both motions, and Citi
filed a reply. ECF Nos. 16 ("Opp'n"), 24 ("Reply").
4
The Court relies on these accounts because Plaintiff's complaint,
having been set out on Judicial Council forms which permit pleading
by checkmark, does not contain factual allegations. Plaintiff does
not contest either account of the facts. See Opp'n at 2-3.
2
1
stay of the trustee sale under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
2
alleges that the trustee sale violated the stay, and thus is void
3
and must be set aside.
4
flow from this incident.
5
violation of the bankruptcy stay amounted to an intentional tort.
6
Id. at 8.
7
alleging that Defendants breached a duty of care to Plaintiff by
8
negligently holding the trustee's sale, which caused him emotional
9
distress.
Compl. at 7, 10.
Plaintiff
His other claims also
Plaintiff claims that the alleged
Plaintiff also asserts a general negligence claim,
Id. at 9.
Plaintiff also asserts a cause of action
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
styled "Preliminary Injunction," the gravamen of which is that the
11
defendants might try to evict him from the allegedly wrongly
12
foreclosed property.
13
declaration that he is the rightful owner of the subject property
14
because the trustee sale, allegedly having violated a bankruptcy
15
stay, had no legal effect.
16
then, rely on the wrongfulness of the trustee sale, which,
17
Plaintiff avers, was wrongful because it violated the automatic
18
bankruptcy stay that ensued after his January bankruptcy filing.
Id. at 11.
Lastly, Plaintiff seeks a
Id. at 12.
All of Plaintiff's claims,
The problem is that no bankruptcy stay ensued after
19
20
Plaintiff's January bankruptcy filing.
As Plaintiff acknowledges,
21
his January 2012 filing was his third in as many months.
22
2.
23
14, 2011 and on December 12, 2011.
24
both petitions were dismissed for failure to file the required
25
schedules.
26
filing was Plaintiff's third in under one year, it did not give
27
rise to an automatic stay and therefore there was no bankruptcy
28
stay for the trustee sale to violate.
Opp'n at
He also filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on November
Id.
Plaintiff acknowledges that
Defendants contend that, because the January 2012
3
Defendants are correct.
1
The bankruptcy code provides for an
2
automatic stay upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, subject to
3
certain limited exceptions, none of which apply here.
4
U.S.C. §§ 362(a) (automatic stay), 362(b) (exceptions).
5
this stay continues until the bankruptcy case is dismissed or
6
closed, or a discharge is granted or denied.
7
However, the automatic stay of § 362(a) lasts only thirty days when
8
the debtor had another bankruptcy case dismissed within the
9
preceding year.
Id. § 362(c)(3)(A).
See 11
Generally,
Id. § 362(c)(2).
If the debtor had two other
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
bankruptcy cases dismissed within the preceding year, then no stay
11
arises at all.
12
filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection for the third time in
13
three months, no stay ensued.
14
challenging the trustee sale is fatally flawed.6
Id. § 362(c)(4)(A)(i).5
Hence, when Plaintiff
Plaintiff's only ground for
Moreover, because all of Plaintiff's other claims are premised
15
16
on the unlawfulness of the trustee sale, Plaintiff's other claims
17
also fail.
18
could lie for conducting a foreclosure sale in violation of a
19
bankruptcy stay, but it is sure that no tort claim lies for
20
5
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court harbors a measure of doubt that a tort claim
Sections 362(c)(3)(A) and 362(c)(4)(A)(i) both contain an
exception, but the exception is inapplicable here. The exception
applies only when the last-filed case is "refiled under a chapter
other than chapter 7" and the earlier case or cases were dismissed
"under section 707(b)." 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(c)(3), 362(c)(4)(A)(i).
Section 707(b) provides bankruptcy courts with a mechanism for
dismissing a bankruptcy case arising primarily from consumer debts
if the court "finds that the granting of relief would be an abuse
of the provisions of this chapter." Here, all parties agree that
Plaintiff's earlier cases were not dismissed under § 707(b).
6
Plaintiff argues that § 362(c)(4)(A)(1)'s third-filed exception
to the automatic stay only applies to cases filed under Chapter 7.
That is a serious misreading of the statute. The third-filed
exception applies to any bankruptcy case and the limited "exception
to the exception" it contains applies to any bankruptcy case except
some filed under Chapter 7. See supra note 5.
4
1
conducting a lawful trustee sale.
2
preliminary injunction also fails, because it assumed that an
3
unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff would be wrongful, due
4
to the allegedly void sale -- but the Court sees no ground for
5
declaring the sale void.
6
declaration that he is the lawful owner of the subject property
7
because the trustee sale is void obviously fails.
8
9
Plaintiff's request for a
Lastly, Plaintiff's request for a
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to add a cause of
action for breach of contract.
Opp'n at 3.
This request appears
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
to be a response to Acqura and Castle Peak's argument that
11
Plaintiff has attempted to "tortify" a cause of action actually
12
premised on contractual obligations, insofar as the authority to
13
conduct a trustee sale under California's nonjudicial foreclosure
14
processes is ultimately authorized by the contract between trustor
15
and trustee.
16
v. La Jolla Group II, 129 Cal. App. 4th 706, 712 (Cal. Ct. App.
17
2005)).
18
Plaintiff does not propose to add new facts and, in any event,
19
would be estopped from doing so, having already agreed to the
20
account of facts presented by Defendants.
21
a different cause of action based on the same facts.
22
presents no authority for the proposition that a breach of contract
23
could arise from a trustee sale that did not violate a bankruptcy
24
stay and otherwise complied with California's nonjudicial
25
foreclosure process.
26
ACP MTD at 6-8 (citing, inter alia, Bank of Am., N.A.
Such amendment, however, clearly would be futile.
Plaintiff only suggests
But Plaintiff
In the absence of any bankruptcy stay for the trustee sale to
27
violate or any allegations of other irregularities, the Court
28
declines to declare the sale invalid.
5
All of Plaintiff's claims
1
thus fail as a matter of law.
2
are futile.
3
GRANTED.
Moreover, his proposed amendments
Accordingly, the pending motions to dismiss are
Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
8
Dated: November 30, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?