Mai et al v. American Home Loans Servicing LP et al

Filing 37

ORDER Granting 8 Defendant American Home Loan Mortgage Servicing, LP's Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining motions in this case are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 1/23/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

GUO JIA MAI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

vs.
AMERICAN HOME LOANS
SERVICING LP, et al.,

11

Defendants.
12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-CV-01217-PMP-PAL
ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is Defendant American Home Loan

14

Servicing, LP,’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #8) filed September 12, 2011. Plaintiffs’

15

filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (Doc. #35) on January 6, 2012, and

16

Defendant filed a Reply Memorandum (Doc. #36). Also before the Court are

17

Defendant’s fully briefed Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. #9), and

18

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Doc. #30) and Amended Complaint

19

(Doc. #31).

20
21

Because the Court finds Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #8) should
be granted, the Court will deny the remaining pending motions.

22

Specifically, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to dismissal of each

23

of the claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint in accord with the provisions of Rule

24

12(B)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

25
26

First, Plaintiffs’ fail to allege their fraud claims with the particularly
required under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Second, the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint are in inadequate

1
2

to state claims for violations of Truth and Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement

3

Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practies (“UDAP”).

4

As a result, Plaintiff’s Claim for Declaratory Relief also fails.
Third, Plaintiffs’ have failed to sufficiently allege an entitlement to

5
6

Injunctive Relief.
Fourth, Plaintiffs’ claim fails to efficiently allege a claim for the Breach of

7
8

the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings for the reasons set forth in

9

Plaintiffs’ Motion.
Finally, each of the remaining claims set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint fail

10
11

for reasons set forth in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.’s #8, #11) and Reply

12

(Doc. #36).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant American Home Loan

13
14

Servicing, LP’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #8) is GRANTED, and the judgment is

15

hereby entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs Guo-Jia-Mai, and Jing-

16

Lin-Liu.

17
18

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that all remaining Motions in this case
are DENIED as moot.

19
20

DATED: January 23, 2012.

21
22
23

PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

24
25
26

2