Tamondong v. Mortgageit, Inc. et al
Filing
44
ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 34 Motion to Dismiss, with leave to amend. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
NANCY TAMONDONG,
Case No. 16-cv-03722-RS
Plaintiff,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
12
13
MORTGAGEIT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
14
15
16
In this action, plaintiff Nancy Tamondong challenges defendants’ right to proceed with a
17
non-judicial foreclosure sale of her primary residence. Tamondong’s application for a preliminary
18
injunction was denied. As noted in the order denying preliminary relief, Tamondong’s claims are
19
brought under legal theories that routinely have been rejected. See, Vasquez v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,
20
2015 WL 5158538, at *3-6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) (collecting cases). The Vasquez court
21
explained, “[b]orrowers commonly attack a lender’s standing to foreclose by challenging
22
irregularities in the securitization process” but “[s]uch challenges are almost universally
23
dismissed.” Id. at *3.
24
Defendants now seek dismissal of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
25
of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for disposition
26
without oral argument and the hearing set for October 28, 2016 is hereby vacated.
27
The motion to dismiss presents two issues. First, the parties are in agreement that
28
Tamondong lacks standing to challenge defendants’ right to foreclose unless the allegations of the
1
complaint and matters subject to judicial notice present a factual question that one or more of the
2
assignments of the deed of trust in dispute were void, as opposed to merely voidable. See Yvanova
3
v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 62 Cal.4th 919, 939-40 (2016) (holding that in the pre-
4
foreclosure context a borrower has standing to challenge void assignments, but distinguishing
5
circumstances involving voidable assignments). Tamondong’s argument, however, is only that
6
because defendant MERS purportedly assigned the deed of trust in 2011 following its prior
7
assignment of the deed of trust in 2008 to a different entity, there is now a legal and/or factual
8
question as to which of the assignments might be void, and whether, as a result, defendants have
9
the legal right to pursue foreclosure.
As defendants point out, however, a party cannot effectively assign that which it no longer
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
owns. Accordingly, the fact that defendant MERS recorded an assignment in 2011 through
12
apparent error is not sufficient to show a factual or legal issue that any relevant assignment of the
13
deed of trust was void.
14
Second, defendants assert Tamondong’s claim under the Truth in Lending Act is barred by
15
the one-year statute of limitations applicable to such claims. Tamondong contends the limitations
16
period should be deemed to have been equitably tolled between March of 2007 (when the loan
17
transaction closed) and July of this year (when the complaint was filed). Tamondong’s only
18
argument in effect, however, is that the limitations period on her claim for defendants’ alleged
19
20
21
22
23
failure to provide proper disclosures at the time the loan closed should be tolled because
disclosures were not provided thereafter. That is not a sufficient basis for equitable tolling. See
Garcia v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 676 F.Supp.2d 895, 906 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (the “mere existence
of TILA violations and lack of disclosure does not itself equitably toll the statute of limitations” .
. . a “contrary rule would render the one-year statute of limitations meaningless, as it would be
tolled whenever there were improper disclosures.”)
24
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss must be granted.1 Although it is not clear that any of
25
26
27
1
Defendants’ additional arguments for dismissal need not be reached, but may present further
reasons that this case cannot go forward.
28
CASE NO.
2
16-cv-03722-RS
1
the complaint’s defects could be cured through amendment, Tamondong may file an amended
2
complaint within 20 days of the date of this order, in the event she has a good faith basis to allege
3
additional facts addressing the issues identified herein.
4
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Dated: October 21, 2016
______________________________________
_
______________________________________
___
___
__ _
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO.
3
16-cv-03722-RS
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?