McCormick et al v. U.S. Bank N.A., et al
Filing
37
ORDER granting Defendant U.S. Bank's 32 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice as to Plaintiffs Vincent Chambers, Robert and William Crocker, Charlene McCormick, and Gerald Schiff; and grants U.S. Bank's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as to Plaintiffs Douglas and Sylina Kidd. The Kidds must file an amended complaint, if they elect to do so, no later than April 12, 2013. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 3/12/13. (cge)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
CHARLENE MCCORMICK, an
individual;
SYLINA KIDD, an individual;
DOUGLAS KIDD, an individual;
ROBERT CROCKER, an individual;
WILLIAM CROCKER, an individual;
VINCENT CHAMBERS, an
individual;
GERALD SCHIFF, an individual
v.
Plaintiffs,
US BANK, N.A., a National Banking
association; and
DOES I – XX, inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No.:3:12cv0433 AJB (WMc)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
U.S. BANK’S MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Doc. No. 32)
This is an action involving multiple Plaintiffs who allege individual negligence
22
claims against U.S. Bank, N.A. (“U.S. Bank”). Presently before the Court is U.S. Bank’s
23
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Doc. No. 30.)
24
Plaintiffs filed an opposition on January 11, 2013, (Doc. No. 34), and U.S. Bank filed a
25
reply on January 15, 2013, (Doc. No. 35). In accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1,
26
the Court finds the motion suitable for determination on the papers and without oral
27
argument. Accordingly, the motion hearing set for March 14, 2013 is hereby vacated.
28
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS U.S. Bank’s motion with regard to
1
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
claims alleged by Plaintiffs Charlene McCormick, Robert Crocker, William Crocker,
2
Vincent Chambers, and Gerald Schiff with prejudice; and GRANTS U.S. Bank’s motion
3
with regard to claims alleged by Plaintiffs Sylina and Douglas Kidd without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
4
5
6
I.
Procedural History
On January 13, 2012, Plaintiffs Charlene McCormick, Douglas Kidd, Sylina Kidd,
7
Robert Crocker, William Crocker, Vincent Chambers, and Gerald Schiff (collectively,
8
“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against U.S. Bank. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. A at 11.) The
9
complaint alleged various causes of action arising from Plaintiffs’ individual mortgage
10
loans, including: (1) privity of contract; (2) rescission; (3) negligence in origination; (4)
11
negligence in servicing; (5) intentional misrepresentation; (6) conspiracy to commit civil
12
tort; (7) and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). (Id.)
13
On February 17, 2012, U.S. Bank removed the action to this Court on the basis of
14
diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 at 2-4.) On March 9,
15
2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, (Doc. No. 8), subsequently followed by their
16
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), (Doc. No. 11). The FAC added Temecula Valley
17
Bank (a non-diverse party) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
18
(“MERS”) as Defendants. (Id. at 5.) The FAC also removed the UCL cause of action,
19
which had been the sole basis for federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) The
20
Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand on August 20, 2012. (Doc. No. 27.)
21
However, on July 2, 2012, while the motion to remand was still pending, U.S.
22
Bank and MERS filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (Doc. No. 19.) On October 30,
23
2012, the Court granted the motion, providing Plaintiffs limited leave to amend the
24
complaint, but only with regard to the second cause of action for rescission and third and
25
fourth causes of action for negligence. (Doc. No. 29.) Plaintiffs filed the operative SAC
26
on November 30, 2012, which alleges a single cause of action for negligence in servicing
27
against U.S. Bank. (Doc. No. 30.) U.S. Bank now moves to dismiss the negligence claim
28
as to each individual Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 32.)
2
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
2
II.
Factual Background
The allegations in the SAC concern five separate mortgage loans, each of which
3
was obtained independently by one or more of the individual Plaintiffs. Thus, although
4
Plaintiffs allege a single cause of action against U.S. Bank, the factual basis for each
5
claim depends heavily on the individual representations made to each Plaintiff in the
6
servicing and/or successful or unsuccessful modification of their loans. Accordingly,
7
each loan is discussed in detail below.
8
A.
Chambers Loan
9
On or about May 21, 2008, Vincent Chambers and Maria Prieto (“Chambers”,
10
husband and wife, borrowed $634,500.00 from U.S. Bank to purchase the property
11
located at 763 Hill View Way, Chico, California 95926 (“Chambers Loan”). (Doc. No.
12
30 at 6:14-17.) In late 2008, Mr. Chambers inquired about a loan modification with Matt
13
Griffin, a “Mortgage Specialist” at his local U.S. Bank. (Id. at 17:23-25.) At this time,
14
Mr. Chambers was informed that he was not eligible for a loan modification because his
15
mortgage payment was not 22% of his gross income. (Id.) However, Mr. Griffin
16
allegedly told Mr. Chambers that he might later qualify for a loan modification if he
17
stopped making payments on his loan. (Id.) U.S. Bank denies this statement was ever
18
made. (Doc. No. 32 at 9:23.)
19
Nonetheless, Mr. Chambers chose not to fall behind on his payments, (Doc. No. 30
20
at 17:26-27), and submitted a loan modification application to U.S. Bank. (Id. at 18:3-5.)
21
Since this time, Mr. Chambers alleges he has tried to contact U.S. Bank numerous times,
22
but each time he is transferred from one department to another, the employees are unable
23
to offer him any assistance, and no one can answer any of his questions regarding his
24
loan modification application. (Id. at 18:6-8.) Accordingly, Mr. Chambers alleges that
25
U.S. Bank owed him a duty by accepting his loan modification application, and breached
26
this duty by failing to adequately communicate with him. (Id. at 18.) As a result, Mr.
27
Chambers contends he has suffered severe emotional distress, anxiety, and frustration.
28
(Id. at 18:17-19.)
3
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
B.
Crocker Loan
2
On or about April 29, 2004, Lois Crocker refinanced the property located at 3190-
3
3192 Dovecrest Court, Spring Valley, California 91977 (“Crocker Loan”). (Id. at 25;
4
Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Exs. C, D.) The Crocker Loan was acquired from Temecula
5
Valley Bank, and was a 30 year fixed rate loan at 6.25% in the amount of $390,000.
6
(Doc. No. 30 at 6:19-24; Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN.) The loan was secured by a Deed of
7
Trust, which was recorded on April 24, 2004, and required monthly payments in the
8
amount of $2,401.30. (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. D.) However, after Lois Crocker
9
died, Lois’ son Robert Crocker occupied the property.
10
Robert Crocker alleges that he attempted to modify the Crocker loan in July 2009,
11
but was denied because his name was not on the loan or listed on the title to the property.
12
(Id. at ¶114.) The Crockers further allege that William Crocker, Lois’ husband, was
13
denied a modification because he was not residing in the property at the time his loan
14
modification application was submitted. (Doc. No. 32 at 4:2-8.) However, as set forth in
15
U.S. Bank’s request for judicial notice, it appears William Crocker ultimately executed a
16
“Loan Modification Agreement” on September 13, 2009, which amended the original
17
Note and Deed of Trust. (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. E at 39-46.) Although this
18
modification was in fact successful, the Crockers contend that U.S. Bank failed to inform
19
them that their monthly payments would increase. (Doc. No. 30 at 19:18-20.) The
20
Crockers further allege that U.S. Bank’s refusal to use Robert Crocker’s financial
21
information to approve the modification agreement was improper because they used his
22
information to approve the forbearance agreement. (Id. at 18:21-24.)
23
Ultimately, however, the Crockers fells behind in their mortgage payments and the
24
property went into foreclosure in 2011. (Doc. No. 32 at 3:22-23.) The property has not
25
yet been sold in foreclosure. (Doc. No. 30 ¶ 125.) Accordingly, the Crockers allege that
26
U.S. Bank created a duty by accepting their loan modification application and granting
27
them a forbearance, (Doc. No. 32 at 22), and breached this duty by failing to adequately
28
communicate with them, (Doc. No. 30 ¶ 114). As a result, the Crockers contend to have
4
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
suffered loss in income, severe stress, anxiety, damage to their credit rating, and financial
2
damage to the family trust. (Id. ¶¶123, 124, 125.) Robert Crocker also claims to have
3
wasted a significant amount of time on the phone speaking about his modification
4
application, which was ultimately unsuccessful. (Id. at ¶115-116.)
5
C.
Kidd Loan
6
On or about January 12, 2006, Douglas Kidd and his wife Sylina Kidd (“Kidd’)
7
refinanced their mortgage loan with Downey Savings and Loan (“Downey”). (Doc. No.
8
30 ¶ 26.) The Kidds refinanced the property located at 2585 Royal Saint James Drive, El
9
Cajon, California 92019, with an Adjustable Rate Note in the amount of $460,000.00.
10
(Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Exs. G, H.) Section Two of the Note set forth specific details
11
regarding the initial interest rate, the maximum interest rate, and when and how the
12
interest rate may change; and Section Three of the Note set forth the initial monthly
13
payments, when/how the monthly payments may change, and how the monthly payment
14
was calculated. (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. H.)
15
The Kidds first tried to modify their loan in 2008, and allege that they were “strung
16
along” and “required to complete the same paperwork on three different occasions”
17
before Downey eventually agreed to modify their loan in April 2008. (Id. at ¶ 128.)
18
Although their loan was eventually modified, the Kidds allege that the modification was
19
insufficient because despite initially lowering their interest rate to 6%, the interest rate on
20
the loan increased every six months thereafter. (Id.) The Kidds also claim that they
21
submitted payments to Downey to pay down the principal under the modification, that
22
Downey received these payments, but that these payments were never credited to their
23
account or properly returned to them. (Id. at ¶¶ 128, 129.)
24
In late 2008 U.S. Bank acquired Downey, and in the process, U.S. Bank became
25
the servicer of the Kidds’ loan. (Id. at 6:26-27.) The Kidds then applied for a second
26
modification to their loan, this time with U.S. Bank. (Id. at ¶ 131.) However, the Kidds
27
allege this second modification attempt was frustrated because U.S. Bank did not return
28
their phone calls, did not answer their questions, and as a result, they were forced to
5
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
resend documents numerous times. (Id.) During this process, the Kidds’ loan was
2
allegedly referred to collections, even though U.S. Bank had informed them not to make
3
payments on the loan during the modification process. (Id. at ¶ 135.)
4
Finally, in August 2009, the Kidds successfully modified their loan. (Id. at ¶ 139.)
5
Nonetheless, the Kidds contend that the modification has provided insufficient assistance.
6
(Id.) Accordingly, the Kidds allege that U.S. Bank owed them a duty of care by accept-
7
ing/granting their loan modification, and breached this duty by failing to properly apply
8
the Kidds’ loan payments to their mortgage debt, thereby misrepresenting the status of
9
their loan to both the Kidds and various credit reporting bureaus. (Id. at ¶ 138.) As a
10
result, the Kidds assert they have lost of equity in their home, and have suffered severe
11
stress, anxiety, and financial harm due to the non-credited mortgage payments previously
12
submitted to Downey. (Id. at ¶¶ 141, 142.)
13
D.
McCormick Loan
14
On May 11, 2006, Charlene and Robert McCormick (“McCormick”) borrowed
15
$132,335.00 at a rate of 6% to be paid over 30 years. (Id. at 7:4-8; Doc. No. 32, Def.’s
16
RJN, Exs. M, N.) The Note was secured by a Deed of Trust on the property located at
17
1204 Karen Avenue, Benton City, Washington 99320. (Id. at Exs. M, N.) After Robert
18
McCormick passed away, Charlene McCormick was no longer able to make payments on
19
the loan. (Id. at 22:18-21.) Charlene McCormick has submitted two loan modification
20
applications, the latest to US Bank (Id.)
21
The first loan modification application was completed though the submission of a
22
hardship letter and a telephone call to U.S. Bank, wherein Charlene McCormick alleges
23
she was informed she would not qualify due to insufficient income. (Doc. No. 30 ¶¶ 144,
24
145.) Charlene McCormick has since submitted a second loan modification application,
25
which was pending review at the time the SAC was filed. (Doc. No. 30 at 23:5-6.)
26
However, Charlene McCormick claims she was assigned a Relationship Manager, Karen
27
Grag, who has stopped responding to her telephone calls and emails regarding the status
28
of her second modification application. (Doc. No. 30 at 23:7-9.) Accordingly, Charlene
6
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
McCormick contends U.S. Bank owed her a duty in accepting her modification agree-
2
ment. and subsequently breached this duty by failing to communicate with her. (Doc.
3
No. 30 ¶¶ 149-52.) As a result, Ms. McCormick claims to have suffered severe stress, an
4
inability to sleep, and a flare up of several medical conditions that have caused her to
5
become bedridden. (Id. at ¶ 152.)
6
E.
Schiff Loan
7
On October 23, 2006, Gerald Schiff (“Schiff”) entered into an Adjustable Rate
8
Note with Downey to borrow $1,250,000.00. (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. O.) The
9
Note was secured by a Deed of Trust on the property located at 46299 Pfeiffer Ridge
10
Road, Big Sur, California 93920. (Id.) Due to the downturn in the economy, Schiff was
11
unable to pay his mortgage. (Doc. No. 32 at 5:24-25.) Schiff has applied for three
12
separate loan modifications, but each of his requests have been denied. (Id. at 23:20-21.)
13
During the modification process, Schiff asserts that he was required “to send in the
14
same prolific documentation” because U.S. Bank claimed they never received the
15
documents he sent. (Id. at 23:22-25.) Schiff further asserts that U.S. Bank has provided
16
inconsistent reasons for denying each of his modification applications. (Id. at 24:1-6.)
17
Accordingly, Schiff contends that U.S. Bank owed him a duty of care because they are an
18
authorized lending institution under the Home Affordable Modification Program
19
(“HAMP”), and accepted his loan modification application for processing. (Doc. No. 30
20
at 24:5-6.) Thus, Schiff contends U.S. Bank breached this duty by failing to properly
21
communicate with him about his loan status and/or failing to correctly process his
22
documents, or in the alternative, by misrepresenting the modification submission
23
instructions. (Id. at 24:5-10.) As a result, Mr. Schiff claims to have suffered damages in
24
the form of undue stress, a lack of sleep, and lost income resulting from the time he spent
25
away from work to comply with U.S. Bank’s modification application process. (Id. at
26
24:20-24.)
27
//
28
//
7
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
LEGAL STANDARD
1
2
3
I.
Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings
4
and allows a court to dismiss a complaint upon a finding that the plaintiff has failed to
5
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732
6
(9th Cir. 2001). The court may dismiss a complaint as a matter of law for: (1) “lack of
7
cognizable legal theory,” or (2) “insufficient facts under a cognizable legal claim.”
8
SmileCare Dental Grp. v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996)
9
(citation omitted). However, a complaint survives a motion to dismiss if it contains
10
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
11
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
12
Notwithstanding this deference, the reviewing court need not accept “legal conclu-
13
sions” as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). It is also improper for the
14
court to assume “the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged.” Associ-
15
ated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519,
16
526 (1983). On the other hand, “[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a
17
court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to
18
an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court only reviews the contents of
19
the complaint, accepting all factual allegations as true, and drawing all reasonable
20
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 956 (9th
21
Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
22
However, in actions “alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity
23
the circumstances constituting [the] fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). These
24
circumstances include the “time, place, and specific content of the false representations as
25
well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.” Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476
26
F.3d 756, 764 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1066
27
(9th Cir. 2004)); In re GlenFed Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1547-49 (9th Cir. 1994). Rule
28
9(b) requires fraud claims to be specific enough to give defendants notice of the particu8
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
lar misconduct that is alleged to constitute the fraud charged, so that defendants can
2
defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong. Id.
3
(citing Bly–Magee v. Cal., 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001)). Accordingly, in
4
averments of fraud or misrepresentation, a plaintiff must specifically set forth what is
5
false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false. Vess v. Ciba–Geigy Corp.
6
USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Decker v. GlenFed, Inc., 42 F.3d 1541,
7
1548 (9th Cir. 1994)).
8
II.
9
Leave to Amend Under Rule 15(a)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend should be freely
10
given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). This rule is intended to
11
“facilitate decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez
12
v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and
13
alterations omitted). When dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim, “ ‘a district
14
court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made,
15
unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of
16
other facts.’” Id. at 1130 (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir.1995)).
17
However, leave to amend may be denied if a court determines that allegation of other
18
facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”
19
Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.1986).
20
Leave to amend may also be denied for repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous
21
amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
22
23
JUDICIAL NOTICE
A district court may consider a limited set of documents without converting a Rule
24
12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment: (1) documents attached to the
25
complaint; (2) documents incorporated by referenced in the complaint; or (3) matters that
26
can be judicially noticed. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003);
27
MGIC Indemnity Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986).
28
9
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
Here, U.S. Bank requests judicial notice of eighteen (18) documents, including: (1)
1
2
the Deed of Trust relating to the Chambers Loan, (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. A), the
3
Crocker Loan, (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Exs. C, F), the Kidd Loan (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s
4
RJN, Exs. G, K), the McCormick Loan, (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. M), and the Schiff
5
Loan, (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. O); (2) the Note relating to the Chambers Loan,
6
(Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. B), the Crocker Loan (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. D),
7
the Kidd Loan, (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Exs. H, J), the McCormick Loan, (Doc. No. 32,
8
Def.’s RJN, Ex. N), and the Schiff Loan (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. P); (3) the Loan
9
Modification Agreements relating to the Crocker Loan, (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. E),
10
and the Kidd Loan, (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Exs. I, L); (4) the Notice of Default
11
relating to the Crocker Property, (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. Q); and (5) the Substitu-
12
tion of Trustee relating to the Crocker Property, (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. R). As
13
Plaintiffs do not object to U.S. Bank’s request, and all the requested documents are
14
matters of public record, the Court GRANTS U.S. Bank’s request for judicial notice as to
15
all (18) documents.1 See Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (taking
16
judicial notice of the existence of the documents, but not the truth of disputed matters
17
asserted therein).
DISCUSSION
18
19
20
I.
Negligence in Servicing
The sole remaining cause of action in the SAC alleges that U.S. Bank was negli-
21
gent in the servicing of each of Plaintiffs’ loans. To a prove a cause of action for
22
negligence, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a legal duty to use reasonable care; (2) breach of
23
that duty; and (3) proximate [or legal] cause between the breach and (4) the plaintiff’s
24
injury.” Mendoza v. City of L.A., 66 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1339 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
25
“The existence of a legal duty to use reasonable care in a particular factual situation is a
26
1
Plaintiffs originally objected to U.S. Bank’s request for judicial notice, stating in
their Opposition, that detailed objections would be filed at a later date. (Doc. No. 34 at
4:22-24.) However, Plaintiffs failed to file any objections and subsequently stated that
28 they did not intend to object to U.S. Bank’s request for judicial notice. (Doc. No. 35,
Guereza Decl., Ex. A.)
27
10
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
question of law for the court to decide.” Vasquez v. Residential Invs., Inc., 118 Cal. App.
2
4th 269, 278 (2004); Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp., 9 Cal. App. 4th 88 (Cal. Ct.
3
App. 1992) (finding that whether a legal duty arises “is a question of law which is simply
4
an expression of the sum total of the policy considerations that lead a court to conclude
5
that a particular plaintiff is entitled to protection”).
6
Here, Plaintiffs allege that by agreeing to consider, process, and/or complete their
7
modification applications, U.S. Bank owed each Plaintiff a duty to properly communicate
8
with them and/or process their loan modification requests, and breached this duty by
9
failing to return their calls, timely process their modification applications, and/or ensure
10
the modification was otherwise in the Plaintiffs’ best interest. U.S. Bank moves to
11
dismiss the negligence claim as to each individual Plaintiff, arguing that the SAC: (1)
12
fails to meet the specificity requirement under Rule 9(b); (2) fails to show the existence
13
of a legal duty between U.S. Bank and any of the Plaintiffs; and (3) fails to show how this
14
alleged duty was otherwise breached thereby causing Plaintiffs damage. (Doc. No. 32 at
15
7:24-26.)
16
The Court first addresses whether a legal duty was established between each of the
17
Plaintiffs and U.S. Bank, and then considers, where necessary, whether Plaintiffs have
18
sufficiently plead the remaining negligence elements—breach, causation, and damages.
19
To the extent the Court finds Plaintiffs’ allegations are based on fraud or negligent
20
misrepresentations, the Court addresses U.S. Bank’s contentions under Rule 9(b).
21
Accordingly, as discussed below, because the Court finds U.S. Bank did not owe
22
Plaintiffs Vincent Chambers, Robert and William Crocker, Charlene McCormick, and
23
Gerald Schiff a legal duty, and any further amendment as to these Plaintiffs would be
24
futile, the Court jointly addresses the issue of legal duty as to these Plaintiffs, and
25
separately addresses the claims raised by Plaintiffs Douglas and Sylina Kidd.
26
A.
27
“As a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when
28
Duty
the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its
11
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
conventional role as a mere lender of money.” Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan
2
Ass’n.., 231 Cal. App. 3d 1089, 1096 (Cal Ct. App. 1991). This general rule also applies
3
to loan servicers. See Castaneda v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., 687 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1198
4
(E.D. Cal. 2009) (noting that a loan servicer owes no duty of care to borrower). How-
5
ever, this no-duty rule does not apply “when the lender’s activities exceed those of a
6
conventional lender.” Osei v. Countrywide Home Loans, 692 F. Supp. 2d 1240, 1249
7
(E.D. Cal. 2010); Wagner v. Benson, 101 Cal. App.3d 27, 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)
8
(“Liability to a borrower for negligence arises only when the lender ‘actively participates’
9
in the financed enterprise ‘beyond the domain of the usual money lender.’ ”) (quoting
10
11
Connor v. Great W. Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 69 Cal. 2d 850, 864 (1968)).
Nonetheless, even when the lender is acting within the scope of a conventional
12
lender, the no-duty rule is only a general rule. Osei, 692 F. Supp. 2d at 1249. Thus, in
13
order to determine whether a duty exists, the court balances six non-exhaustive factors
14
established by the California Supreme Court in Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal. 2d 647, 650
15
(1958) (“Biakanja factors”); see also Nymark, 231 Cal. App. 3d at 1098. These include:
16
(1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff; (2) the
17
foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff; (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered
18
injury; (4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury
19
suffered; (5) the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct; and (6) the policy of
20
preventing future harm. Nymark, 231 Cal. App. 3d at 1098. Although Biakanja reasoned
21
that this test determines “whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a
22
third person not in privity” with the defendant, 49 Cal.2d at 650, 320 P.2d 16, Nymark
23
held that this test also determines “whether a financial institution owes a duty of care to a
24
borrower-client.” 231 Cal. App. 3d at 1098.
25
1.
The Chambers, Crocker, McCormick, and Schiff and Loans
26
In light of the Biakanja factors and corresponding case law in the Ninth Circuit, the
27
Court finds Plaintiffs Vincent Chambers, Robert and William Crocker, Charlene
28
McCormick, and Gerald Schiff have each failed to establish that U.S. Bank exceeded the
12
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
role of a traditional lender and thus owed them a legal duty of care. Biakanja, 49 Cal. 2d
2
at 650; Champlaie v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1062 (E.D.
3
Cal. 2009) (dismissing plaintiffs negligence in servicing claims finding Bank of Ameri-
4
can did not exceed its role as a traditional lender).
5
With regard to the first Biakanja factor, the Court considers the degree to which
6
the individual transactions were intended to affect the individual Plaintiffs. Biakanja, 49
7
Cal. 2d at 650. To the extent a loan modification application was never in fact approved
8
by the lender, courts have found that such transactions are too attenuated, and thus weigh
9
against imposing liability on a lender.2 In addition, because lenders have no legal duty to
10
modify an existing loan, denial of a modification application, without more, has also been
11
held to be insufficient to impose a legal duty on a lender. See generally, Ruiz v. Saxon
12
Mortgage Servs., 2009 WL 1872465, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2009) (Section 2923.6
13
is not “to be construed [as imposing] any mandatory duty . . .”); Mabry v. Super. Ct., 185
14
Cal. App. 4th 208, 214, 226-32 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (California Civil Code Section
15
2923.5 does not require the lender to modify the loan); see also Watkinson v. Mortgage
16
IT, Inc., 10-CV-327-IEG (BLM), 2010 WL 2196083, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2010)
17
(“Under California law, borrower who claimed that lender overstated his income and the
18
value of his property on a mortgage loan application and knew that both pieces of
19
information were false, sufficiently alleged that lender owed him a duty of care based on
20
the fact that lender intended to induce him to enter into the loan transaction.).
21
Here, Plaintiffs Chambers, Robert and William Crocker, McCormick, and Schiff
22
all submitted loan modification applications to U.S. Bank.3 However, as of the filing of
23
24
2
27
3
Argueta v. JP Morgan Chase., Civ. No. 2:11-441 WBS GGH, 2011 WL 2619060,
at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2011) (defendant’s mere acceptance of plaintiff’s modification
25 application did not impose a duty of care); Dooms v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., Civ.
No. 11–0352 LJO DLB, 2011 WL 1232989, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011) (holding
26 that the lender owed plaintiff no duty of care related to her loan modification attempts).
“[Vincent] Chambers inquired about a loan modification with U.S. Bank in late
2008 . . . Later, Mr. Chambers . . . successfully submit[ed] a modification application to
28 U.S. Bank.” (Doc. No. 30 at 17:18; 18:2-3.) “On November 18, 2009, a Loan
Modification Agreement, entered into between William Crocker and U.S. Bank . . . was
13
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
the SAC, or any recent filings by the Parties, Charlene McCormick and Vincent Cham-
2
ber’s modification applications are still pending and have not been approved or denied;
3
Gerald Schiff and Robert Crocker’s modification applications have been denied; and
4
William Crocker’s modification application was approved.4 Thus, absent affirmative
5
misrepresentations on behalf of U.S. Bank that Plaintiffs’ loans would in fact be
6
modified—and not just representations that U.S. Bank would commence the modification
7
process—merely accepting a modification application or denying an application is too
8
passive an activity to warrant imposition of a legal duty.5
9
Moreover, Plaintiff Schiff’s allegations that U.S. Bank owed him a legal duty as a
10
result of requiring him to submit documents multiple times, or the Crockers’ allegations
11
that the modification failed to provide sufficient relief, and/or that U.S. Bank refused to
12
consider certain documents when determining whether their loan modification would be
13
accepted, also fail to establish how the individual transactions were intended to affect
14
Plaintiffs. First, it is well settled that absent mishandling of modification documents,
15
recorded . . .” (Doc. No 32, Def.’s RJN at 2:20-21.) “On September 1, 2009, Douglas
Kidd and Sylina Kidd entered into a Modification Agreement with U.S. Bank . . .” (Doc.
No. 32, Def.’s RJN at 3:22-23.) Charlene McCormick “has applied [for a modification] a
17 total of two times, with the latest attempt in December 2011.” (Doc. No. 30 at 22:20-21.)
“[Gerald] Schiff first attempted to modify his loan with U.S. Bank in 2010. He has since
18 attempted to modify his loan three times.” (Doc. No. 30 at 23:20-21.)
16
19
4
23
5
“Ms. McCormick’s second loan modification is currently pending review.” (Doc.
No. 30 at 23:12.) “Later, [Vincent] Chambers did successfully submit a modification
20 application to U.S. Bank.” (Doc. No. 30 18:2-3; Doc. No. 35 at 5:23-25.) “Each time
[Gerald] Schiff’s modifications were denied.” (Doc. No. 30 at 24:1-2.) “Robert Crocker,
21 Lois’ son, alleges that he attempted to modify the loan in 2009, but was denied . . .” (Doc.
No. 32 at 3:9-10.) “However, on September 13, 2009, William Crocker executed a ‘Loan
22 Modification Agreement’ with US Bank . . .” (Doc. No. 32 at 3:14-15.)
24
25
26
27
28
Compare Ansanelli v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. C 10–03892 WHA, 2011
WL 1134451, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2011) (finding that defendant bank owed plaintiff
borrowers a duty of care because defendant granted plaintiff a trial modification plan, and
guaranteed plaintiffs that if they made payments on time under the trial modification
plan, which plaintiffs did, defendant would provide a permanent modification of their
loan) (emphasis added), with Lyons v. Bank of Am., NA, 11-01232 CW, 2011 WL
3607608, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2011) (no duty of reasonable care in the processing
and determination of plaintiffs’ loan modification application when Defendants informed
Plaintiffs that they would reduce the amount of the loan payments for a three month trial
period but subsequently increased the payment amount before Plaintiffs could make the
first payment).
14
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
poor communication on behalf of a lender resulting in multiple requests for documenta-
2
tion is not enough to warrant imposition of legal duty. Ottolini v. Bank of America, No.
3
C-11-0477 EMC, 2011 WL 3652501 *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2011) (no duty of care,
4
despite lender’s alleged mishandling of loan modification documents because the
5
modification was never acted upon). The same is true for what documents a lender can
6
require from a borrower to approve a modification. See Argueta, 2011 WL 2619060
7
(finding no legal duty when lender refused to accept any further documentation from
8
borrower proving that property was her primary residence). Furthermore, to the extent
9
Plaintiffs Chambers and Schiff allege affirmative misrepresentations on behalf of U.S.
10
Bank, the Court finds these allegations fail to once again meet the heightened pleading
11
standard required by Rule 9(b); and nonetheless, would be insufficient, even if adequately
12
plead, to warrant imposing liability on U.S. Bank.6
13
Therefore, even though Plaintiffs Vincent Chambers, Robert and William Crocker,
14
Charlene McCormick, and Gerald Schiff all, to some extent, allege U.S. Bank mishandled
15
their loan modification applications, or in some way failed to adequately communicate
16
with them regarding the modification process, all of these allegations fall short of those
17
alleged in Garcia v. Ocwen Loan Servicing. 2010 WL 1881098 (N.D. Cal. May 10,
18
2010) (finding the lender owed the borrower a duty of care because the lender mishan-
19
dled documents, which permanently deprived the plaintiff of the possibility of obtaining
20
the requested relief). Accordingly, because any alleged lack of communication between
21
U.S. Bank and the Plaintiffs, even if true, is too remote to justify imposing a legal duty on
22
U.S. Bank, the Court finds the first Biakanja factor weighs against imposing such a duty.
23
24
25
6
For example, although Plaintiff Chambers alleges he was instructed to stop
making payments on his loan if he wished to be considered for a loan modification, and
26 Plaintiff Schiff alleges he received inaccurate submission instructions, neither of these
allegations create a legal duty on behalf of U.S. Bank. See Dooms, 2011 WL 1232989, at
27 *12 (finding no duty of care where plaintiff borrower stopped making payments on her
loan for three months after being told by defendant lender that to qualify for any loan
28 modification program she must be in default for three months).
15
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
The second through the fourth Biakanja factors focus on the foreseeability or
2
certainty of the harm suffered by the individual plaintiff, and the closeness of the
3
connection between the harm suffered and the defendant’s conduct. Biakanja, 49 Cal. 2d
4
647, 650 (1958). Absent a likelihood of approval of a modification request, courts in the
5
Ninth Circuit have found that the foreseeability of the harm to the plaintiff is too far
6
removed from the defendant’s conduct to warrant imposition of a legal duty. Compare
7
Ottolini, 2011 WL 3652501 *7 (“[T]he harm to [plaintiff] was not particularly foresee-
8
able since there is no indication that loan modification would actual be approved. Absent
9
a likelihood of approval, [plaintiff] suffered no ultimate injury from the mishandling of
10
his application. [T]he degree of certainty that [plaintiff] suffered injury is likewise
11
minimal for the same reason”), with Crilley v. Bank of Am., N.A., CIV. 12-00081 LEK,
12
2012 WL 1492413, at *9-10 (D. Haw. Apr. 26, 2012) (defendant went beyond its
13
conventional role as a loan servicer by soliciting plaintiffs to apply for a loan modifica-
14
tion; engaging with plaintiffs for several months by reassuring them they qualified for the
15
HAMP loan modification program; and informing plaintiffs that they would receive a
16
permanent loan modification if they made all of their trial payments on time).
17
Here, as stated above, despite accepting loan modification applications from
18
Plaintiffs Vincent Chambers, Robert and William Crocker, Charlene McCormick, and
19
Gerald Schiff, U.S. Bank never affirmatively stated that any of the modification applica-
20
tions would in fact be approved on Plaintiffs’ requested terms. Nor did U.S. Bank enter
21
into preliminary modification contracts with any of the Plaintiffs.7 Thus, because a
22
lender has no duty to modify a loan, Dooms, 2011 WL 1232989 at *12, complete a
23
modification application once submitted, DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Civ. No.
24
10–01390, 2010 WL 4285006, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2010), or rescue a borrower from
25
hardship, Sierra-Bay Fed. Land Bank Ass’n. v. Super. Ct., 227 Cal. App. 3d 318, 334
26
7
See Ansanelli, 2011 WL 1134451, at *1 (finding defendant lender owed plaintiff
borrowers a duty of care because defendant granted plaintiff a trial modification plan and
guaranteed plaintiffs that if they made payments on time under the trial modification
28 plan, which plaintiffs did, defendant would provide a permanent modification of their
loan) (emphasis added).
27
16
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
(Cal. Ct. App. 1991), none of Plaintiffs’ allegations establish a legal duty on behalf of
2
U.S. Bank.
3
In addition, courts in the Ninth Circuit have also held that allegations that a lender
4
instructed the borrower to fall behind in their loan payments in order to be considered for
5
a loan modification are also insufficient to establish a legal duty. See Dooms, 2011 WL
6
1232989, at *1. For example, in Dooms v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
7
the court held that the lender did not owe the borrower a separate and independent duty of
8
care, despite the fact that the lender advised the plaintiff that he must be “in default three
9
months” in order to “qualify for any loan modification program.” Id. Thus, to the extent
10
Plaintiff Chambers alleges U.S. Bank represented to him that if he fell behind on his
11
payments he would have a better chance at obtaining a loan modification, on their own,
12
these allegations do not establish a legal duty on the part of U.S. Bank. See also Sullivan
13
v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 725 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (stating that
14
lenders do not owe borrowers a duty of care not to misinform them about the loan
15
modification process, or by stating that the borrower will have a better chance at being
16
approved for a modification if they fall behind in their loan payments).
17
Finally, the same is true for lenders authorized to offer modifications under
18
HAMP. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have routinely held that because HAMP only
19
provides an incentive for lenders to modify preexisting loans, but does not otherwise
20
affirmatively require lenders to complete and/or approve loan modifications, lenders
21
operating under the HAMP program do not automatically owe every borrower who
22
submits a HAMP modification application a legal duty of care. See Hernandez v. Aurora
23
Loan Servs., LLC, CV 11-00607 AHM OPX, 2011 WL 6178881 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13,
24
2011) (No duty of care created under HAMP); Hernandez v. HomeEq Servicing, 2010
25
WL 5059673, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Dec.6, 2010) (HAMP provides an incentive for lenders
26
to modify existing loans but it does not require such modifications). Therefore, Plaintiffs
27
Chambers and Schiff’s allegations that U.S. Bank owed them a legal duty based on the
28
HAMP program also fail. (Doc. No. 30 at 17:21-22; 24:5-6.) Accordingly, the Court
17
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
finds the second through the fourth Biakanja factors also weigh against imposing a legal
2
duty on U.S. Bank.
3
Finally, the Court finds the fifth Biakanja factor, which focuses on the moral blame
4
attached to the defendant’s conduct, and the sixth Biakanja factor, which focuses on the
5
policy of preventing future harm, also weigh against imposing a legal duty on U.S. Bank.
6
Biakanja, 49 Cal. 2d 647, 650 (1958). For example, although Plaintiffs allege that the
7
mishandling of their loan modification requests, the failure to grant their loan modifica-
8
tion requests, and/or the miscommunication relating to the loan modification process
9
suffices as “moral blame,” the Court is at a loss to see how U.S. Bank’s conduct was
10
willful or part of a scheme to defraud the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs Vincent Chambers, Robert
11
Crocker, Charlene McCormick, and Gerald Schiff each submitted a separate loan
12
modification application to U.S. Bank, each of which was denied, or is still currently
13
pending for different reasons.8 Thus, this is not the case where each Plaintiff submitted
14
an application and was treated the same way, or was told the same misrepresentations by
15
U.S. Bank. Ottolini, 2011 WL 3652501 at *7 (“there is no suggestion that the mishan-
16
dling of [plaintiff’s] application was willful or part of a pattern or anything more than
17
ordinary negligence”). The same is true with respect to the final Biakanja factor, as
18
courts have found that the policy of preventing future harm cuts both in favor and against
19
imposing a legal duty on lenders. Id. On the one hand, imposing liability on lenders may
20
provide an incentive to handle modification requests timely, yet on the other hand,
21
imposing a legal duty on lenders could serve as a disincentive to lenders from offering
22
modifications in the first place. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds the final two factors
23
also weigh against imposing a legal duty on U.S. Bank.
24
25
26
8
“Ms. McCormick’s second loan modification is currently pending review.”
(Doc. No. 30 at 23:12.) “Later, [Vincent] Chambers did successfully submit a
27 modification application to US Bank.” (Doc. No. 30 18:2-3.) “Each time [Gerald]
Schiff’s modifications were denied.” (Doc. No. 30 at 24:1-2.) “Robert Crocker, Lois’
28 son, alleges that he attempted to modify the loan in 2009, but was denied . . .” (Doc. No.
32 3:9-10.)
18
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
Therefore, after a consideration of the factual allegations presented by Plaintiffs
2
Vincent Chambers, Robert and William Crocker, Charlene McCormick, and Gerald
3
Schiff, in light of the Biakanja factors and Ninth Circuit case law, the Court finds
4
imposition of a legal duty on U.S. Bank unwarranted. Biakanja, 49 Cal. 2d at 650.
5
Moreover, because the Court finds further amendment would be futile, it is therefore
6
unnecessary to address whether the above stated Plaintiffs have also sufficiently alleged a
7
corresponding breach, causation, and damages.9 Accordingly, U.S. Bank’s motion to
8
dismiss as to Plaintiffs Vincent Chambers, Robert and William Crocker, Charlene
9
McCormick, and Gerald Schiff is therefore GRANTED with prejudice.
10
2.
The Kidd Loan
11
Next, the Kidds allege that U.S. Bank owed them a legal duty of care by making
12
affirmative misrepresentations that their past loan payments, which had originally been
13
made to Downey, but were never properly credited to their account, would be credited to
14
the principal balance of their loan. (Doc. No. 30 at 20:16-28.) The Kidds allege this duty
15
was breached by U.S. Bank when U.S. Bank failed to properly credit the payments to
16
their account, which has caused a loss of equity in their home, severe stress, and the risk
17
of imminent foreclosure. (Doc. No. 30 at 21:26-27.) While the Court finds the Kidds
18
have arguably pled that U.S. Bank may in fact owe them a legal duty of reasonable care
19
under the Biakanja factors, based on these affirmative misrepresentations, the Court finds
20
the Kidds have nonetheless failed to meet the heightened pleading standard required
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Nonetheless, the Court is at a loss to see how these Plaintiffs could allege
damages caused by U.S. Bank’s alleged wrongful conduct. See, e.g., Scotten v. First
Horizon Home Loan Corp., CIV. 2:12-1266 WBS, 2012 WL 3277104 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9,
2012) (“plaintiffs admit that they fell behind on their mortgage payments and make no
allegations that they were entitled to a modification or should have been offered a
modification . . . [t]he potential loss of their home is caused by their delinquency, which
they do not allege was caused by defendants’ actions.”); Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn.,
209 Cal. App. 4th 182, 207-08 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (finding no relationship between
borrower and lender giving rise to a duty the breach of which would permit borrower to
recover emotional distress damages based on negligence). See also Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that district court did not abuse discretion in
dismissing without leave to amend because of futility); Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627
F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be
futile).
19
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
under Rule 9(b). See Glen Holly Entm’t, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1086,
2
1093 (C.D. Cal.1999) (“Claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation must meet the
3
heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b)”); U.S. Concord, Inc. v. Harris Graphics
4
Corp., 757 F. Supp. 1053, 1058 (N.D. Cal.1991).
5
Negligent misrepresentation is a form of deceit, which requires proof of: (1) a
6
misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact; (2) without reasonable grounds for
7
believing it to be true; (3) with intent to induce the plaintiff's reliance; (4) ignorance of
8
the truth and justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (5) damages. See Fox v. Pollack,
9
181 Cal. App. 3d 954, 962 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). Allegations based on affirmative
10
misrepresentations must meet the heightened pleading standard required under Rule 9(b)
11
in order to provide the defendant with the “who, what, when, where, and how of the
12
misconduct charged.” Sherman v. Stryker Corp., 2009 WL 2241664, at *3 (C.D. Cal.
13
Mar. 30, 2009) (citing Vess, 317 F.3d at 1106). Here, the Kidds have failed to meet this
14
standard. Besides alleging that “they were told not to worry [about making] payments to
15
U.S. Bank during the modification process,” the Kidds have failed to specify who told
16
them to stop making payments, whether these past payments were in fact going to be
17
credited to their account, and the approximate date and time of these alleged conversa-
18
tions. (Doc. No. 30 at 21:17-18.)
19
Moreover, even though the Kidds allege that they were negligently informed by
20
U.S. Bank that past mortgage payments would be credited to their account, thereby
21
reducing the principal amount due and owing under their loan, the Court is also cognizant
22
that the Kidds signed a Modification Agreement with U.S. Bank on September 3, 2009,
23
wherein the Kidds agreed to the amount of the principal balance currently due on their
24
loan. (Doc. No. 32, Def.’s RJN, Ex. L at 101) (stating that the principal balance as of
25
September 1, 2009 was $502,363.20). Accordingly, because Plaintiffs did not oppose
26
U.S. Bank’s request for judicial notice, (Doc. No. 35 at 2 n.1), nor have the Kidds
27
explained how these alleged misrepresentations have continuing effect after the Septem-
28
ber 1, 2009 Modification Agreement, the Court finds the Kidds have once again failed to
20
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
sufficiently state a claim for negligent servicing of their loan based on these alleged
2
misrepresentations.10
3
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs
4
Douglas and Sylina Kidd, providing the Kidds limited leave to amend to correct the
5
deficiencies noted therein. No further allegations may be alleged absent leave of Court.
6
In the event the Kidds elect to amend their complaint, the Kidds must clearly articulate:
7
(1) the substance of these alleged misrepresentations; (2) when these alleged misrepresen-
8
tations occurred; (3) who made these alleged misrepresentations; (4) how these misrepre-
9
sentations still have effect after the September 1, 2009 Modification Agreement; and (5)
10
how these representations have caused them harm. See, e.g., Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d
11
616, 627 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that fraud allegations must be accompanied by “the who,
12
what, when where and how” of the misconduct charged); Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d
13
666, 671-672 (9th Cir.1993) (“The complaint must specify facts as the times, dates,
14
places, benefits received and other details of the alleged fraudulent activity.”); Scotten,
15
2012 WL 3277104, *6 (“plaintiffs admit that they fell behind on their mortgage payments
16
and make no allegations that they were entitled to a modification or should have been
17
offered a modification . . . [t]he potential loss of their home is caused by their delin-
18
quency, which they do not allege was caused by defendants’ actions”).
CONCLUSION
19
20
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss
21
with prejudice as to Plaintiffs Vincent Chambers, Robert and William Crocker, Charlene
22
McCormick, and Gerald Schiff; and GRANTS U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss without
23
prejudice as to Plaintiffs Douglas and Sylina Kidd. The Kidds must file an amended
24
complaint, if they elect to do so, no later than April 12, 2013.
25
26
10
Whether or not the modification provided sufficient relief is irrelevant as there is
no duty to modfy. Mabry, 185 Cal. App. 4th at 231; Renteria v. United States, 452
27 F.Supp.2d 910, 922-923 (D.Ariz.2006) (borrowers had to rely on their own judgment and
risk assessment to determine whether or not to accept loan.); Sierra-Bay, 227 Cal. App.3d
28 at 334 (“A commercial lender is not to be regarded as the guarantor of a borrower’s
success and is not liable for hardships which may befall a borrower.”)
21
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
4
5
DATED: March 12, 2013
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22
12cv433 AJB (WMC)
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?