Saterbak v. National Default Servicing Corporation et al
Filing
12
ORDER (Re Dkt # 8 ): Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is granted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a motion to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty (30 ) days of the date this order is issued, accompanied by the proposed First Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff does not file a motion to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date this order is issued, the Clerk of Court will be ordered to close the case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 10/1/2015. (mdc)
1
OCT 01 2015
2
CLERK, U.S. DI:::Tr;'CT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTHIGT OF CAI..IFORNIA
3
lW
__...._____ .J5,.~.E.~:.rUTY
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LAURA D. SATERBAK,
Civil No. 15cv956-WQH-NLS
12
Plaintiff,
vs.
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING
CORPORATION' SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.; and
DOES I-XXX,
ORDER
13
14
15
16
Defendants.
HAYES, Judge:
17
18
19
20
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.8) filed by
Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS") and National Default Servicing
corporation ("NDSC").
I.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Background
On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff Laura D. Saterbak commenced this action by filing
the Complaint. (ECF No.1). On June 12,2015, Defendants SPS and NDSC filed the
Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.8). On July 6,2015, Plaintifffiled a response. (ECF No.
10). On July 10,2015, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 11).
II.
Allegations of the Complaint
"[4826 Mount Helix Dr., La Mesa, California] was acquired by way of a Grant
Deed dated April 30, 2007." (ECF No.1 Cj[ 8). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
have sent correspondence to the Plaintiff through the United States Mails claiming that
. 1 ..
15cv956·WQH·NLS
1 "they or their alleged principal are owed a sum certain, which is not correct, and which
2 they know or should know is not correct," and that "they are collecting for an
.3 undisclosed principal." Id. 'j[ 10-11. "Plaintiff believes and alleges the amount noted
4 for collection or the amount stated that is needed to satisfy the foreclosure is incorrect,
5 and discovery is highly likely to show Defendant's alleged 'principal' has been paid
6 (in full or in part) due to third party payers, and thus a full explanation or accounting
7 is requested." Id. 'j[ 10. "Further, the Plaintiff herein believes and alleges that the
8 actions of the Defendants jointly and severally continue to cause her personal economic
9 harm, in addition to jeopardizing her business relationship with other third parties,
10 slandering her credit histories with false and misrepresentative information; thus
11 depriving her of an income or the quiet enjoyment of her property. Said conduct of
12 Defendants tortuously interferes with her business affairs and relations with third
13 parties by and through their actions as debt collectors." Id. 'j[ 15. "The actions ofthe
14 Defendants, jointly and severally, now constitute an imminent threat to the Plaintiff's
15 possession of the property which is the subject ofthis Complaint." !d. 'j[ 17.
16
"Defendant NDSC, [] by and through its agent, and or under the direction of
17 Defendant SPS, sent correspondence and various Notices of Trustee's Sales to the
18 Plaintiff, only to later postpone or completely cancel them." Id'j[ 19. "The Plaintiff
19 alleges that the directives given in this regard and other similar notices that Defendant
20 NDSC sent Plaintiff each and every month through April 2015 are identical and
21 possess inherent issues based on the lack of authority due to defendants: (a) having
22 done improper accounting relating to the actual sum due and owing; and (b) failure to
23 establish a full and verifiable chain of custody as to the note or Deed of Trust ("DOT")
24 between Plaintiff and the 'real party in interest. ,,, !d.
25
"Defendants' (NDSC and SPS) activities are wrongful because it emanates from
26 a void or voidable DOT ... or note ... because the actual parties to it were defunct, or
27 not viable, at the time or nothing but shell, pass-through entities .... " Id. 'j[ 21. "It is
28 impossible for SPS or any other patty to appoint a Substitute Trustee, or NDSC to act
- 2. -
15cv956-WQH-NLS
1 as such for a number of reasons:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
There are defects in the chain of title of the entity carrying the financing.
This started because the original lender, American Brokers CondUIt
("ABC"), and its nominee, and agent for foreclosure pUrPoses, Mortgage
Electronic Registration Sy.stems,~Inc. (MERS) were defective, not vIable
entities, and not registereu to do business in California in 2007 when the
Note or DOT was executed.... ABC and MERS at the time in essence
were fictitious entities, representing a real party in interest that did not
manifest itself or 2roperly perfect its interest. Therefore the Deed of Trust
filed on June 1, 2U07, as Hie underlying authority for this foreclosure is a
nullity at the option of Plaintiff, wliich she elects to void with the
assistance of the court.
Even if the above is not voided or set aside, the subsequent attempt to
assign the DOT as set forth in Exhibit 12 is fraught with error and cannot
be deemed a valid transfer. It is believed the Defendants claim their
aut!lOrity from this im2roper assigpment. This is an invalid and improper
assIgnment because 01 the followmg:
The document is dated on December 27, 2011; yet it wasn't
filed for record until December 17, 2012, almost a year
later....
American Brokers Conduit was not qualified to do business
in California at that time. Plus, it was never a legitimate
company; and even if it was, it ceased to be sud} and or
became aefunct or bankrupt before December 27, 2011.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MERS as nominee ABC claims to have received "good and
valuabie consideration from ABC". Both entities have no
right to conduct business in California, so their actions
tliereafter are voidable, at the election of the other party,
Plaintiff who has so elected.
MERS could NOT have received anything of value because
of its bankruptcy-remote status and subsiQiary status.
The attmpt to assign this to the Securitized trust (Structured
Asset Mortgage Investment II Trust 2007-AR7 Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates 2007-AR7), is invalid, so any
action by the trust or an arm of the trust is invalid.
The cut-off date for this trust is September 1).2007. The date
of this assignment is Decemoer 27, LO 11..... recorded
December 17, 2012.,;..OVER FOUR YEARS AFTnRITWAS
EXECUTED ANu FIVE YEARS AFTER IT WAS
RECORDED.
Based upon the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) at
pages S-96 through S-98, of the aoove named trust, the
manner in which tfie above assignment purported to convey
the note and deed into the trust pool was noncompliant in
multiple aspects and thus, could not have made the trust pool
-3-
15cv956-WQH-NLS
1
2
!d.
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22.
"It is believed the real party in interest has not authorized the commencement of
foreclosure proceedings herein. Further, it is alleged the real party in interest has been
substantially paid or paid in full and the principal trying to collect money from the
Plaintiff is an imposter. Suggesting the contrary by these defendants is proffered as
false and a misrepresentation, emanating from bad records, self-interest, and/or
deception." Id.
9
10
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?