Davenport v. JP Morgan Chase et al

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Should plaintiff wish to file an amended complaint, he shall file such pleading no later than January 27, 2017. In light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby continued from January 13, 2017 to March 31, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than March 24, 2017. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 01/05/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2017)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CLYDE R. DAVENPORT,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

JP MORGAN CHASE, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-05447-MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S
MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND; CONTINUING
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 9

12
13

Before the Court is defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“Chase”) motion to

14

dismiss, filed September 30, 2016. Plaintiff Clyde R. Davenport (“Davenport”) has not

15

filed opposition. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion,

16

the Court rules as follows.1

17

In his complaint, Davenport asserts eight causes of action, each of which appears

18

to be based on Chase’s allegedly unlawful initiation of foreclosure proceedings on

19

Davenport’s property. Chase seeks dismissal on the ground, inter alia, that Davenport, in

20

violation of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has failed to provide fair

21

notice as to the nature of his claims.

22

Rule 8(a) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

23

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), so as to “give

24

the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” see

25

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal quotation, citation, and alteration

26

omitted). A complaint complies with Rule 8(a) when it “sets forth who is being sued, and

27
1

28

By order filed November 23, 2016, the Court took the matter under submission.

1

on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d

2

1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996). By contrast, a complaint that lacks “simplicity, conciseness

3

and clarity as to whom [a plaintiff is] suing for what wrongs, fails to perform the essential

4

functions of a complaint,” and is subject to dismissal. See id. at 1180; see also Cafasso

5

v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting,

6

“Rule 8(a) has been held to be violated by . . . a complaint that was highly repetitious, or

7

confused, or consisted of incomprehensible rambling”) (internal quotation and citation

8

omitted).2

9

Here, Davenport appears to base his claims for relief on the theory that the 2013
assignment of his loan to Chase was fraudulent. In support thereof, Davenport attaches

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to his complaint a Deed of Trust naming Davenport as “Borrower”3 and Washington

12

Mutual Bank (“WaMu”) as “Lender” (see Compl. Ex. 1), which Davenport alleges WaMu

13

“caused to be recorded” in Contra Costa County “[o]n February 27, 2008” (see Compl.

14

¶ 7). Davenport further alleges that “in September 2008, [WaMu] was purportedly

15

purchased from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) by [Chase].” (See

16

Compl. ¶ 9.) Next, Davenport alleges that Chase “fraudulently transferred to itself the

17

subject real property . . . while falsely attesting to transfer on behalf of the FDIC” (see id.

18

¶ 10) and attaches to his complaint a copy of an Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded

19

January 30, 2013 (see Compl. Ex. 2). The above-referenced allegations as to the 2013

20

assignment, however, appear to be wholly inconsistent with Davenport’s allegation that

21

Chase purchased WaMu in 2008. In other words, Davenport has not given fair notice to

22

Chase or the Court as to how Chase allegedly fraudulently sought to transfer to itself in

23

2013 an asset that it allegedly acquired in 2008.

24
2

25
26
27

The Court notes Davenport filed his complaint in state court and thus was not, at
the time of filing, required to comply with Rule 8(a). Nevertheless, as the instant action
was subsequently removed to federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1) (stating “[t]hese rules apply to a civil action after it is
removed from a state court”).
3

28

Although the Deed of Trust lists borrowers other than Davenport (see Compl.
Ex. 1), the instant action is brought only on behalf of Davenport.
2

1

Additionally, Davenport appears to base at least some of his claims for relief on

2

the ground that Chase “acted without being duly authorized by [t]he [s]tate of California to

3

engage in First Residential Mortgage Loans” (see Compl. ¶ 19; see also id. ¶ 47 (alleging

4

Chase is not “a duly authorized and legally licensed lending institution”)). Davenport fails,

5

however, to set forth the grounds upon which said claims rest and sufficient facts to

6

support such conclusory assertions.

7

Accordingly, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to comply with Rule

8

8(a).4 Although Chase seeks dismissal with prejudice, the Court will afford Davenport

9

leave to amend. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1990)
(holding leave to amend “should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

can correct the defect”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Specifically, Davenport

12

will be afforded leave to amend “to state[] clearly how [Chase] is alleged to have violated

13

[his] legal rights and . . . focus on linking [his] factual allegations to actual legal claims.”

14

See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1176.
CONCLUSION

15
16
17
18
19
20

For the reasons stated above, Chase’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED,
and the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend.
Should Davenport wish to file an amended complaint, he shall file such pleading
no later than January 27, 2017.
In light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby CONTINUED

21

from January 13, 2017 to March 31, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management

22

Statement shall be filed no later than March 24, 2017.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

4

In light of the above ruling, the Court does not address herein Chase’s other
arguments in support of dismissal.
3