Ha v. Bank of America , N.A. et al
Filing
66
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, BANA thus is dismissed from the case. by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 57 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2014) Modified on 12/8/2014 (cv, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
MINA HA,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.
Defendants.
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:14-cv-00120-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
(Re: Docket No. 57)
For the third time, this court considers a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Bank of
America, N.A. This court has twice dismissed Plaintiff Mina Ha’s claims against BANA. 1 Once
18
again, Ha has failed to allege facts sufficient to support her claims of fraud and unfair business
19
20
21
practices. Once again, the court GRANTS BANA’s motion to dismiss, this time without leave to
amend.
I.
22
Over four complaints in the past year, Ha has asserted various claims against BANA, Bank
23
24
of New York Mellon and Resurgent Capital Service, L.P. 2 Because this court has previously set
25
26
1
27
2
28
See Docket Nos. 33, 55.
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court stayed Ha’s claims against BNY Mellon and
Resurgent pending a decision on Ha’s loan modification application. See Docket No. 24.
1
Case No. 5:14-cv-00120-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
1
out the facts of this case in substantial detail, 3 the court will proceed directly to the merits of the
2
motion. For the sake of clarity, the court charts the amended pleadings and asserted claims as
3
follows:
4
Date
DN
Complaint
Original Complaint
1.
2.
3.
4.
Violation of California Civil Code §§ 2924 and 2923.5
Violation of California Civil Code §§ 2923.6 and 2923.7
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Unfair Competition
First Amended Complaint
1.
2.
3.
4.
California Civil Code §§ 2924 and 2923.5
California Civil Code §§ 2923.6 and 2923.7
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Unfair Competition
Second Amended Complaint
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Violation of California Civil Code § 2924
Violation of California Civil Code § 2923.5
Violation of California Civil Code § 2924g
Violation of California Civil Code § 2923.7
Fraud
Negligent Misrepresentation
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Unfair Competition
Third Amended Complaint
1.
2.
3.
4.
Violation of California Civil Code § 2924g
Violation of California Civil Code § 2923.7
Fraud
Unfair Competition
5
6
1.08.14
1
7
8
2.24.14
13
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
7.16.14
36
Claims Raised
13
14
15
8.05.14
56
16
17
II.
18
19
This court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332.
The court has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
20
§ 1367. The parties further consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under
21
22
28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
As a preliminary matter, BANA requests judicial notice of several documents, including
23
24
various deeds of trust, notices of default, and notices of trustee’s sale. 4 The court may take judicial
25
notice of a “fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known” or “can be
26
3
See Docket No. 55 at 2-8.
4
See Docket No. 58.
27
28
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-00120-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
1
accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
2
questioned.” 5 Because these documents are in the public record and are not subject to reasonable
3
dispute, the court takes judicial notice of them.
4
5
6
7
8
9
At this stage of the case, the court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as
true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 6 The court’s review is
limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and
matters of which the court may take judicial notice. 7 However, the court need not accept as true
allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. 8
III.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal
11
12
theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” 9 If a plaintiff
13
fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” the complaint
14
may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 10 A claim is
15
facially plausible “when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable
16
17
18
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 11 Against these standards,
neither of Ha’s two claims against BANA—fraud and unfair business practices—pass muster.
First, Ha renews her fraud claim against BANA. She claims that “beginning in or around
19
20
September 2008 and continuing through February 2012, [BANA] made several misrepresentations
21
5
Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
22
6
See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008).
23
7
See id.
24
8
25
See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Twombly, 550
U.S. at 561 (“a wholly conclusory statement of [a] claim” will not survive a motion to dismiss).
9
26
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
10
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
11
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009).
27
28
3
Case No. 5:14-cv-00120-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
1
through various representatives, including, but not limited to, an individual who identified herself,
2
in-person, only as Alise and who identified herself as a [BANA] employee with the Customer
3
Assistance Center in August 2011.” 12
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ha’s fraud claim appears to have a statute of limitations problem. Fraud claims are subject
to a three-year statute of limitations.13 While it may not have been clear to Ha that she had the
makings of a lawsuit beginning in 2008, at the very least, she would have been on notice by May 1,
2009 when BANA recorded a notice of default against her property. 14 Even calculating from that
later date, Ha would have had to bring her fraud claim by April 30, 2012 in order for her claim to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
be timely. She instead filed this case on January 8, 2014 and brought her fraud claim for the first
11
time on April 29, 2014, missing the mark by nearly two years.
12
13
But even if Ha’s fraud claim had been brought in a timely manner, her claim would still not
pass muster under Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard. “Under California law, the
14
indispensable elements of a fraud claim include a false representation, knowledge of its falsity,
15
16
intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and damages.” 15 The Ninth Circuit requires that “the pleader
17
. . . state the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of
18
the parties to the misrepresentation” in order to allege a claim. 16 Even though the court held Ha’s
19
fraud allegations insufficiently pleaded in her SAC, she does not appear to have remedied the
20
21
22
12
See Docket No. 56 at ¶ 47.
13
See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(d).
14
See Docket No. 58 at Exh. B.
23
24
25
15
26
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2003) (layered quotations and
citations omitted).
27
16
28
Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986)
(citing Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1985)).
4
Case No. 5:14-cv-00120-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
1
problem. Ha has stated what she alleges the false representation to be, 17 but she has failed to allege
2
with any particularity that these various employees knew that their representation was false or that
3
they intended to mislead her. And as to justifiable reliance, Ha claims that she relied on Alise’s
4
statements counseling her to continue defaulting on her loans, but in fact, Ha had defaulted on her
5
payments long before Alise or any other BANA representative advised her against reinstating her
6
loan. 18
7
But all else aside, Ha has failed to allege any tangible damages to satisfy a fraud claim. 19 In
8
9
her complaint, she alleges “damage to her credit, excessive late fees and charges, loss of a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
permanent loan modification and the imminent loss of her Property.” 20 The damage to Ha’s credit
11
is speculative at best. As pleaded, any late fees and charges were incurred as a result of her own
12
failure to make mortgage payments—not as a result of any fraudulent behavior on the part of
13
14
BANA. Similarly, the loss of a loan modification cannot be alleged as fraud-based damages
because BANA is not required to approve a loan modification. 21 The imminent loss of her
15
16
property also is not a tangible harm. In fact, while a sale date was previously set, it was postponed
17
indefinitely, and there is no indication that BANA intends to reinstate the sale. Ha still alleges that
18
she is the owner of her property. 22 She cannot simultaneously allege that she owns it and that its
19
imminent loss has damaged her.
20
21
22
23
24
17
“[I]t was [BANA’s] policy not to initiate foreclosure proceedings against any borrowers as long
as they were in the process of applying for a loan modification or were being reviewed for a loan
modification.” Docket No. 56 at ¶ 47.
18
Ha defaulted on her payments beginning on June 1, 2008, several months before she contacted
BANA (September 2008). See Docket No. 58 at Exh. B.
19
See Cal. Civ. Code § 1709; Fladeboe v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc., 150 Cal. App. 4th 42, 66 (2007).
20
Docket No. 56 at ¶ 51.
21
See Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 214 (2010).
22
See Docket No. 56 at ¶ 4.
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 5:14-cv-00120-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Second, Ha brings an unfair business practices claim under California’s unfair competition
1
2
law. Ha alleges that BANA’s “inducement of [her] detrimental reliance through false promises
3
constitutes unlawful business practices under [the UCL].” 23 In order for a plaintiff to establish
4
standing under the UCL, she must allege an “injury in fact” and that she has “lost money or
5
property as a result of such unfair competitions.” 24 As discussed above, Ha has failed to establish
6
sufficient injury in her complaint. While she alleges damages in the form of “attorneys’ fees and
7
8
9
costs to save her home, the loss of her home if it is sold, a loss of reputation and goodwill,
destruction of credit, severe emotional distress, loss of appetite, frustration, fear, anger,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
helplessness, nervousness, anxiety, sleeplessness, sadness, and depression,” 25 none of these
11
constitute damages under the UCL. 26 She has not lost her property and she fails to particularize
12
any monetary loss to render it more than mere speculation.
13
But even if Ha could establish standing, she has failed to allege any unlawful, unfair or
14
fraudulent predicate acts upon which a claim might be grounded. The UCL prohibits unfair
15
16
competition, including, inter alia, “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act.” 27 The only
17
predicate claim that Ha has alleged—her fraud claim—has already failed, dooming her UCL claim
18
as well.
19
20
21
23
See id. at ¶ 59.
22
24
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204.
23
25
Docket No. 56 at ¶ 60.
24
26
25
26
27
See Cordon v. Wachovia Mortg., 776 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (finding that
incurring attorney’s fees is insufficient to substantiate a UCL claim because otherwise “a private
plaintiff bringing a UCL claim automatically would have standing merely by filing suit”); see also
Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal. App. 4th 497, 523 (2013) (finding lack of
standing under UCL where a plaintiff cannot attribute alleged harm to the wrongful actions of a
defendant).
27
28
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
6
Case No. 5:14-cv-00120-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
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?