Johnson v. U.S. Bank, National Association et al
Filing
58
ORDER granting 36 Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiffs claim for Intentional Interference with a Contractual Relationship, against both Defendants, is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs request for Declaratory Relief, and her Application for a Preliminary Injunction are both denied, and dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 3/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRONTE JOHNSON,
Case No.: 13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
[DOC. NO. 36]
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A.; AND NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE, LLC,
15
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
INTRODUCTION
20
This matter comes before the Court on joint motion to dismiss Plaintiff Bronte
21
Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), filed by Defendants U.S.
22
Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”),
23
(collectively referred to as the “Defendants”). The motion has been fully briefed by the
24
parties. After careful consideration of the entire record, including the pleadings, relevant
25
exhibits and declarations submitted by the parties, and for the reasons set forth below,
26
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
27
//
28
//
1
13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
BACKGROUND1
1
2
On or about April 5, 2007, Plaintiff financed the purchase of the real property located
3
at 8100 Fairview Avenue, La Mesa, California 91941 (the “Property”). See Doc. No. 1-1
4
at 38-43. The Property was secured by a deed of trust (“DOT”) in the amount of
5
$840,000.00. Id. at 38; Doc. No. 17 at 5-26; Doc. No. 18-1 at 7-27. The DOT identifies
6
former defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”)2 as the lender and beneficiary, and
7
PRLAP, Inc. (“PRLAP”) as the original trustee. Doc. No. 18 at 7-8.
8
On March 12, 2012, BANA assigned its beneficial interest in the DOT to Defendant
9
U.S. Bank. See Doc. No. 18-1 at 30. On the same day, U.S. Bank substituted ReconTrust
10
Company, N.A. (“ReconTrust”) as the new trustee, in place of PRLAP, on the subject
11
DOT. Id. at 32.
12
13
14
15
1
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of five documents attached to its
joint motion to dismiss as Exhibits 1-5. See Doc. No. 36-2, Exh. 1-5. Exhibits 1-5 are (1)
the DOT concerning the Property, recorded on April 10, 2007, in the official records of
San Diego County (Document No. 2007-0239892); (2) a copy of the Corporate DOT
Assignment concerning the Property, recorded on March 13, 2012 (Document No. 20120145295); (3) a copy of the Substitution of Trustee documents concerning the Property,
recorded on March, 13, 2012 (Document No. 2012-0145296); (4) a copy of the Notice of
Default and Election to Sell under the DOT concerning the Property, recorded on March
13, 2012 (Document No. 2012-0145297); and (5) a copy of the Notice of Trustee’s sale
concerning the Property, recorded on March 13, 2012 (Document No. 2012-0350215). Id.
Because Plaintiff does not object to Defendants’ request for judicial notice, and because
Exhibits 1-5 are publicly recorded and publically accessible whose accuracy cannot be
reasonably questioned, this Court deems it appropriate to take judicial notice of Exhibits
1-5. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089,1094, n.1 (9th Cir. 2012);
Caldwell v. Caldwell, 2006 WL 618511, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
2
On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims against BANA without
prejudice. See Doc. No. 56 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)). Accordingly, BANA’s
freestanding motion to dismiss the instant TAC, [see doc. no. 41], became moot, and U.S.
Bank and Nationstar’s joint motion to dismiss survived.
2
13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
1
On March 13, 2012, following Plaintiff’s home loan default, ReconTrust recorded a
2
notice of default against the Property. Id. at 32-37. Then, on June 15, 2012, ReconTrust
3
recorded a Notice of Trustee’s sale against the property. Id. at 39-40.
4
On November 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in
5
California Superior Court, County of San Diego, challenging the foreclosure. See Doc. No.
6
1-1 at 4-36. Specifically, Plaintiff sued BANA, U.S. Bank, and Nationstar,3 seeking
7
Declaratory Relief and asserting claims for (1) Negligence, (2) Quasi Contract, (3)
8
violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 1700, et seq., (4) and Accounting.
9
See Doc. No. 1-1.
10
The FAC was removed to the Southern District of California on December 19, 2013.
11
See Doc. No. 1. The matter was assigned to District Court Case No. 13cv3104-CAB-WVG,
12
the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Four days later, on December 23, 2013, U.S. Bank
13
and Nationstar filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims against them. See Doc. No. 5 (citing
14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Similarly, on December 26, 2013, BANA moved to dismiss all
15
of Plaintiff’s claims, as to it. See Doc. Nos. 7.
16
During the period set for briefing Defendants’ pending motions, [doc. nos. 5, 7], it
17
was discovered that the claims brought in Plaintiff’s FAC arose from, inter alia, the same
18
or substantially identical transactions, happenings, or events, as a case previously litigated
19
before this Court. See Johnson v. U.S. Bank, National Association, et al., Case No.
20
12cv2218-JAH-MDD.2 Accordingly, the entire matter removed by Defendants on
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Nationstar is alleged to be Plaintiff’s loan servicer agent. See Doc. No. 16 at 5.
2
In that matter, Plaintiff originally brought suit against U.S. Bank and BANA,
asserting claims for (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Negligence; (3) Quasi Contract; (4)
violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq.; (5) violations of California Business & Professions
Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and (6) Accounting. Although the record in 12cv2218-JAH-MDD
indicates that, on November 7, 2013, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the
Complaint with prejudice, the Court later amended its November 7th order to reflect that
3
13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
1
December 23, 2013, including all pending motions [doc. nos. 5, 7,], transferred from Judge
2
Bencivengo to this Court, pursuant to the District Court’s “Low-Number” rule. See Doc.
3
No. 11. As of July 14, 2014, both motions were fully briefed by the parties, and
4
subsequently taken under submission without oral argument. See Doc. Nos. 9-10, 12-14.
5
On July 31, 2014, this Court issued an order (1) granting U.S. Bank and Nationstar’s
6
joint motion to dismiss, [doc. no. 5]; and (2) granting BANA’s motion to dismiss, finding,
7
as the basis for granting both motions, that Plaintiff was an unrelated third party lacking
8
standing to challenge foreclosure proceedings based on alleged securitization violations or
9
assignment defects. See Doc. No. 15 at 8. Specifically, this Court found that Plaintiff
10
“lacked standing to bring not only her first cause of action (declaratory relief), but also her
11
second (negligence), third (quasi-contract), fourth (unfair competition), and fifth
12
(accounting) causes of action” because each claim was based on alleged securitization
13
violations and assignment defects to which plaintiff was neither a party nor a third party
14
beneficiary. Id. The Court granted leave to file a Second Amended Compliant (“SAC”) no
15
later than September 1, 2014. Id.
16
On September 1, 2014, Plaintiff timely filed her SAC against the same Defendants,
17
asserting claims for (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Quiet Title;
18
and (3) Declaratory Relief. See Doc. No. 16. On September 15, 2014, Defendants U.S.
19
Bank and Nationstar moved to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See
20
Doc. No. 17. Defendant BANA’s 12(b)(6) motion was filed on September 18, 2014. See
21
Doc. No. 18. As of October 30, 2014, both motions were fully briefed by the parties. See
22
Doc. Nos. 21, 22, 25. On March 3, 2016, this Court granted both motions to dismiss, finding
23
that (1) the SAC lacked sufficient allegations in support of Plaintiff’s intentional
24
interference claim; (2) Plaintiff lacked standing to bring a quiet title claim against any of
25
26
27
28
dismissal was without prejudice. See Johnson v. U.S. Bank National Assoc., et al., Case
No. 13cv3104-JAH-MDD, Doc. No. 15 at 5. Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiff’s
FAC was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Id.
4
13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
1
the Defendants; and (3) Plaintiff failed to allege an actual controversy, and therefore did
2
not state a declaratory relief claim. See Doc. No. 31. The Court again granted Plaintiff leave
3
to file a Third Amended Compliant (“TAC”) no later than April 1, 2016. Id.
4
On March 23, 2016, Plaintiff timely filed her TAC, again asserting claims for (1)
5
Intentional Interference of a Contractual Relationship; and (2) Declaratory Relief. See Doc.
6
No. 32. On May 3, 2016, and May 27, 2016, Defendants, respectively, filed 12(b)(6)
7
motions to dismiss. See Doc. Nos. 36, 41. On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed one opposition
8
in response to both motions. See Doc. No. 55. On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice
9
voluntarily dismissing BANA from this case. See Do. No. 56. On November 15, 2016,
10
Plaintiff filed a declaration supplementing her opposition to the motion to dismiss. No reply
11
briefs were filed by Defendants U.S. Bank or Nationstar.
12
13
DISCUSSION
1.
Legal Standard
14
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint.
15
Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Dismissal is warranted under Rule
16
12(b)(6) where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. See Robertson v. Dean Witter
17
Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326
18
(1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a dispositive
19
issue of law”). Alternatively, a complaint may be dismissed where it presents a cognizable
20
legal theory yet fails to plead essential facts under that theory. Robertson, 749 F.2d at 534.
21
While a plaintiff need not give “detailed factual allegations,” he must plead sufficient facts
22
that, if true, “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
23
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007).
24
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
25
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
26
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547). A claim is facially
27
plausible when the factual allegations permit “the court to draw the reasonable inference
28
that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In other words, “the non5
13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
1
conclusory ‘factual content,’ and reasonable inferences from that content, must be
2
plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Service,
3
572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
4
claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
5
on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
6
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must assume the
7
truth of all factual allegations and must construe all inferences from them in the light most
8
favorable to the nonmoving party. Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002);
9
Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). However, legal
10
conclusions need not be taken as true merely because they are cast in the form of factual
11
allegations. Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2003); Western Mining
12
Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, a
13
court may consider the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached to the complaint,
14
documents relied upon but not attached to the complaint when authenticity is not contested,
15
and matters of which a court takes judicial notice. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,
16
688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). If a court determines that a complaint fails to state a claim, the
17
court should grant leave to amend unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly
18
be cured by the allegation of other facts. See Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th
19
Cir. 1995).
20
2.
Analysis
21
Raising identical arguments, Defendants U.S. Bank and Nationstar jointly move this
22
Court for an order dismissing the TAC, in its entirety, and with prejudice, because Plaintiff
23
does not, and cannot, allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be
24
granted. See generally Doc. No. 36-1.
25
A.
26
“The elements which a plaintiff must plead to state the cause of action for intentional
27
interference with contractual relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third
28
party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations
6
13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
1
to induce a breach of disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or
2
disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” Quelimane Co. v.
3
Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 19 Cal. 4th 26, 55 (1998) (quoting Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
4
v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal. 3d 1118, 1126 (1990)). Furthermore, “it is the settled rule
5
in actions for wrongful interference with contract rights that an essential element of the
6
cause of action is that the conduct charged be the procuring cause of the interference and
7
the harm.” Beckner v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 4 Cal. App. 3d 504, 507 (1970) (citations
8
omitted).
9
Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s intentional interference claim fails because
10
Plaintiff does not, and cannot, allege plausible facts suggestive of any intended, or actual,
11
breach of a contractual relationship by either Defendant. See Doc. No. 36-1 at 7.
12
Specifically, Defendants argue that the intentional act Plaintiff alleges as the basis for its
13
intentional interference claim—the March 12, 2012 assignment whereby BANA assigned
14
its beneficial interest in the DOT to U.S. Bank—was valid, and, therefore, cannot constitute
15
a wrongful interference with contractual rights inuring to Plaintiff’s benefit. Id. The Court
16
agrees, and, as a matter of law, finds that this claim is subject to dismissal with prejudice.
17
On March 3, 2016, this Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s claim for
18
intentional interference with a contractual relationship because her allegations were
19
sufficiently contradicted by matters properly subject to judicial notice. See Doc. No. 31 at
20
2, 7 (“[T]he [judicially noticed] DOT outlines the substitute trustee procedure, stating,
21
‘Lender, at its option may . . . appoint a successor trustee to any Trustee appointed
22
hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowledged by Lender” and “the successor
23
trustee shall succeed to all title, powers and duties conferred upon the Trustee herein.”). A
24
review of the TAC reveals that the basis for Plaintiff’s intentional interference claim is,
25
once again, the March 12, 2012 assignment whereby BANA assigned its beneficial interest
26
in the DOT to U.S. Bank. See Doc. No. 32 at 9-10. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that “an
27
effort was made in March of 2012 to transfer the lenders interest in the Note and Deed of
28
Trust to the Defendant trust[,]” and, as a result of this transaction, “Plaintiff owes no money
7
13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
1
to the Defendants” because “Plaintiff has no contractual relationship of any kind with any
2
named Defendant.” See id. at 9-13, 15-18. However, a review of the judicially noticed
3
disclosures attached to Defendants’ motion support the Court finding here, as it did in its
4
March 2016 order, [doc. no. 31], that (1) Defendants’ assignment was valid and routine;
5
and (2) a valid and routine assignment of a contract to another party is not an intentional
6
interference with an existing contract. Quelimane Co., 19 Cal. 4th at 55. Consequently,
7
Plaintiff’s intentional interference claim fails to state a claim, as a matter of law, and is
8
therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266
9
F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended on other grounds, 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001).
10
B.
11
“A declaratory judgment offers a means by which rights and obligations may be
12
adjudicated in cases ‘brought by any interested party’ involving an actual controversy that
13
has not reached a stage at which either party may seek a coercive remedy and in cases
14
where a party who could sue for coercive relief has not yet done so.” Seattle Audubon Soc.
15
v. Moseley, 80 F.3d 1401, 1405 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
Declaratory Relief
16
Plaintiff’s TAC requests that this Court issue a declaratory order, determining, inter
17
alia, whether “Defendants have [ ] legally cognizable rights as to the Note and Deed of
18
Trust as between Plaintiff and her original lender, Bank of America, National Association
19
that is the subject of this case.” See Doc. No. 32 at 18. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s
20
request should be denied because, once again, Plaintiff fails to assert an actual controversy
21
over a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Doc. No. 36-1 at 6. Thus, Defendants
22
argue, Plaintiff’s request is improper and redundant with respect to the relief sought for her
23
intentional interference cause of action, and should be denied. Id.
24
In light of the Court’s finding that Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable intentional
25
interference claim, the Court consequently finds that there is an insufficient basis for
26
declaratory relief.
27
//
28
//
8
13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
1
C.
Injunctive Relief
2
Plaintiff’s TAC includes a request appearing to seek injunctive relief. See Doc. No.
3
32 at 18. Specifically, Plaintiffs requests an order “permanently restraining the Defendants
4
from asserting any rights under the Subject Note and Deed of Trust.” Id. The Court
5
construes this request as a preliminary injunction application, and notes that the application
6
includes no allegations of irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, or that
7
balancing the equities would tip in Plaintiff’s favor. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense
8
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632
9
F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the Court finds no basis for injunctive
10
relief. Vanguard Outdoor, LLC v. Los Angeles, 648 F.3d 737, 740 (9th Cir. 2011).
11
12
13
14
15
16
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant U.S. Bank and Nationstar’s joint motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint, [doc. no. 36], is GRANTED, as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s claim for Intentional Interference with a Contractual Relationship,
against both Defendants, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
17
b. Plaintiff’s request for Declaratory Relief, and her Application for a
18
Preliminary Injunction are both DENIED, and DISMISSED WITH
19
PREJUDICE.
20
2. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
21
22
23
DATED: March 27, 2017
_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
9
13cv3104-JAH (MDD)
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?