Wong v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 8 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/10/2015. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2015)

1

‘

2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

VICTOR WONG,

9

Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

No. C-15-2311 EMC

v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, et al.,

(Docket No. 8)

12
Defendants.
13
___________________________________/
14
15

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the basis of failure to state a

16

claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court held a hearing on Defendants’ motion on

17

August 6, 2015. This order memorializes the rulings made by the Court at the hearing.

18

Based on the judicially noticeable documents, the Court does not agree with Plaintiff’s

19

contention that Defendants lacked the authority to foreclose. That being said, Defendants’ argument

20

that the statute of frauds bars the bulk of Plaintiff’s claims lacks merit. Taking all reasonable

21

inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged enough facts to support estoppel.

22

See generally Vissuet v. Indymac Mortg. Servs., No. 09-CV-2321-IEG (CAB), 2010 U.S. Dist.

23

LEXIS 26241 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010). As for Plaintiff’s fraud claim, Plaintiff has adequately

24

alleged scienter on the part of Defendants. See Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc., 39 Cal. 3d 18, 30 (1985)

25

(noting that “fraudulent intent has been inferred from such circumstances as defendant’s . . . hasty

26

repudiation of the promise”). Finally, regarding the declaratory relief claim, while it may be

27

///

28

1

duplicative of Plaintiff’s other claims, the Court also sees no real prejudice to Defendants in

2

maintaining the claim given that the other claims are still viable.

3

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

4

This order disposes of Docket No. 8.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: August 10, 2015

9
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2