Hix v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 10 (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

THOMAS HIX,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

9

(Re: Docket No. 10)

10

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01747-PSG

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Now before the court in this foreclosure case is a motion to dismiss by Defendants
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and U.S. Bank, N.A.1 At the hearing on the motion, Plaintiff
Thomas Hix conceded that his initial complaint does not allege that his application for a loan
modification was complete, as his cause of action under Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6 requires.2
Meanwhile, Hix’s claim of fraudulent business practices in violation of California’s unfair
competition law does not “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud”;3 his
complaint alleges “false and misleading representations” in conclusory terms, and it claims that

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

See Docket No. 10. The court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The
parties further consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). See Docket Nos. 7, 13.
2

See Docket No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 10-23; Penermon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 47 F. Supp. 3d 982, 999
(N.D. Cal. 2014) (requiring a Section 2923.6 plaintiff to “clearly plead that the application as
submitted was complete”).
3

26
27
28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); see Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1102-05 (9th Cir. 2003)) (“Rule 9(b)’s heightened
pleading standards apply to claims for violations of the . . . UCL.”).
1
Case No. 16-cv-01747-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

certain business practices were “deceptive” without explaining how or why.4 And furthermore,

2

Hix’s operative complaint includes no allegations at all related to U.S. Bank.

3

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Because it is not yet clear that further

4

amendment would be futile, leave to amend also is GRANTED.5 Any amended complaint shall be

5

filed within 14 days.

6

SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: May 31, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4

Docket No. 1-1 at ¶¶ 26-27.

5

See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).

26
27
28

2
Case No. 16-cv-01747-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS