Giordano et al v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB et al
Filing
65
ORDER GRANTING 54 MOTION TO DISMISS; AND TERMINATING 55 MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on July 8, 2011. (jflc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2011)
1
**E-Filed 8/3/2011**
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
JOHN H. GIORDANO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
15
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, et al.,
Case Number 5:10-cv-04661-JF
ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS; AND TERMINATING
MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT
[re: dkt. entries 54, 55]
Defendants.
16
17
18
Defendant Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (“Wachovia”) moves to dismiss the second
19
amended complaint (“SAC”) of Plaintiffs John and Georgana Giordano (“the Giordanos”) for
20
failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to strike portions
21
of the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Because the SAC fails to
22
cure the deficiencies identified by the Court in dismissing Plaintiffs’ original and first amended
23
complaints, the motion to dismiss will be granted, without leave to amend.
24
On October 4, 2010, the Giordanos filed the instant action in the Santa Clara Superior
25
Court, alleging six state law claims arising out of the refinance of their home mortgage and their
26
subsequent default on the loan. Wachovia removed the case to this Court on the basis of
27
28
1
This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.
Case No. 5:10-cv-04661-JF
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ETC.
(JFLC2)
1
diversity jurisdiction. On December 14, 2010, this Court issued an order granting Wachovia’s
2
motion to dismiss with leave to amend in part. The Giordanos filed a first amended complaint
3
(“FAC”) on January 3, 2011, asserting only two state law claims: (1) financial elder abuse; and
4
(2) unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et
5
seq. On March 25, 2011, the Court concluded that the FAC failed to state a claim for either elder
6
abuse or unfair business practices because it did not “allege a basis for asserting that [Wachovia]
7
had a duty to provide an oral explanation of the loan terms,” and because the claims appeared “to
8
be time-barred on [their] face.” Order of March, 25, 2011 at 3. Although the Court expressed
9
reservations about whether the statute of limitations defect could be cured by additional
10
amendment, leave to amend was granted based on the representation of the Giordanos’ counsel
11
that the Giordanos could allege additional facts demonstrating delayed discovery of the facts
12
giving rise to the claim. The Giordanos filed the SAC on April 22, 2011.
13
The SAC varies only slightly from the FAC, and it does not cure any of the defects
14
identified by the Court. The FAC stated that the Giordanos did not learn of the true terms of the
15
loan until they “began to experience severe financial problems due in part to the increasing
16
interest rate and mortgage payments.” FAC ¶ 15. The SAC adds only that in 2009, John H.
17
Giordano was diagnosed with metastatic cancer, and the Giordanos “began to experience severe
18
financial problems due in part to medical expenses and the increased interest rates and mortgage
19
payments. SAC ¶ 16. While Mr. Giordano’s health problems apparently are serious, they do not
20
explain why the Giordanos were unable discover the truth about their loan in the exercise of
21
reasonable diligence. See Parson v. Tickner, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1513, 1525 (1995). The SAC also
22
fails to provide additional support for the Giordanos’ assertion that the bank had a duty to
23
provide an oral explanation of the loan terms. See SAC ¶¶ 11-12 (alleging substantially the same
24
facts as FAC ¶¶ 9, 12).
25
The Giordanos did not file opposition to the instant motion. However, at oral argument,
26
the Giordanos, representing themselves, indicated that they intended to obtain new legal counsel
27
to pursue their claims. While the Court recognizes the Giordanos’ right to seek counsel of their
28
choice, neither the original complaint nor the two amended complaints allege any facts
2
Case No. 5:10-cv-04661-JF
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ETC.
(JFLC2)
1
suggesting that a viable claim could be stated. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be
2
granted without leave to amend. However, if after seeking legal advice, the Giordanos are able
3
to articulate a valid claim for relief, the Court will entertain a motion for relief from judgment
4
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
5
6
Accordingly, the SAC will be dismissed, without leave to amend, and the motion to strike
terminated as moot. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
7
8
DATED: 7/8/2011
_________________________________
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 5:10-cv-04661-JF
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND ETC.
(JFLC2)
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?