Prince v. Loop Capital Markets, LLC., et al
Filing
20
ORDER Granting with prejudice 5 Motion to Dismiss and 18 Joinder. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/16/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
THOMAS PRINCE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS )
FARGO BANK, N.A., and BANK OF
)
AMERICA,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (#5).
BACKGROUND
17
18
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
15
16
2:13-cv-429-RCJ-GWF
I.
Foreclosure Facts
19
Plaintiff Thomas R. Prince and, his wife, Sarah K. Prince executed a note secured by
20
a deed of trust on a piece of property located at 8138 Villa Duenas Court, Las Vegas, Nevada,
21
which was recorded in Clark County on August 14, 2009. (Deed of Trust (#5-1) at 2-3). The
22
mortgage dated, August 11, 2009, was for $274,928. (Id. at 2). The lender on the deed of
23
trust was New Line Mortgage, Div. Republic Mortgage Home Loans, LLC. (Id.). The trustee
24
on the deed of trust was Equity Title of Nevada. (Id.). The Mortgage Electronic Registration
25
Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) was named as “nominee for Lender . . . and Lender’s successors and
26
assigns” and claimed to be the beneficiary under the security instrument. (Id.).
27
On August 16, 2012, MERS, as the nominee for New Line Mortgage Div. Republic
28
Mortgage Home Loans, LLC, executed a corporate assignment of the deed of trust and
granted, assigned, and transferred all beneficial interest in the deed of trust to Bank of
1
America, N.A. (Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust (#5-2) at 3). On December 19, 2012,
2
MERS, as nominee for New Line Mortgage Div. Republic Mortgage Home Loans, LLC,
3
executed an assignment of deed of trust and assigned and transferred the right, title, and
4
interest in the deed of trust to Bank of America, N.A. (Assignment of Deed of Trust (#5-3) at
5
2).
No notice of default has been filed in this case. (See Mot. to Dismiss (#5) at 7 n.4).
6
7
8
9
II.
Complaint
In March 2013, Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A. filed
a petition for removal based on diversity jurisdiction.
(Pet. for Removal (#1) at 1-2).
10
Defendants attached pro se Plaintiff Thomas Prince’s complaint which had been filed in the
11
Eighth Judicial District in Clark County, Nevada, against Defendants Loop Capital Markets,
12
LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Bank of America (collectively “Defendants”) for intentional
13
misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. (Compl. (#1-1) at 2-3).
14
The three-page complaint alleged the following. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff had entered into a
15
mortgage with New Line Mortgage on or about August 11, 2009 for real property located at
16
8138 Villa Duenas Court, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Id.). The deed of trust was pooled and
17
securitized in a trust whose lead beneficiaries or managers were Defendants.
18
Certificates of ownership were later sold and discovery revealed that a proper endorsement
19
of the note at the time of formation of the securitized trust did not occur. (Id.). Plaintiff had “a
20
justified reliance on truthfulness of ownership and proper assignments which was
21
misrepresented by defendants’ account of ownership beneficiary through endorsements,
22
assignments, and Notice of Default.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleged that he had directly suffered loss
23
of income and “deformation of character as a result of the intentional misrepresentation
24
orchestrated” by Defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff sought “relief of reconveyance of said real
25
property free of levy and lien, and equitable relief of $275,000.00 plus incurred legal fees.”
26
(Id.). Plaintiff also sought injunctive relief caused by the foreclosure procedure of the property
27
during litigation. (Id. at 4).
28
The pending motion now follows.
2
(Id.).
1
LEGAL STANDARD
2
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court
3
must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint as well as all reasonable inferences
4
that may be drawn from such allegations. LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146, 1150 n.2 (9th
5
Cir. 2000). Such allegations must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
6
party. Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). In general, the court
7
should only look to the contents of the complaint during its review of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
8
to dismiss. However, the court may consider documents attached to the complaint or referred
9
to in the complaint whose authenticity no party questions. Id.; see Durning v. First Boston
10
Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987).
11
The analysis and purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a
12
claim is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th
13
Cir. 2001). The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant
14
is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246,
15
249 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotations omitted). To avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint does
16
not need detailed factual allegations; rather, it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to
17
relief that is plausible on its face.” Clemens v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022
18
(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955,
19
1964, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949,
20
173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (stating that a “claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
21
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
22
liable for the misconduct alleged”). Even though a complaint does not need “detailed factual
23
allegations” to pass muster under 12(b)(6) consideration, the factual allegations “must be
24
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the assumption that all the
25
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127
26
S.Ct. at 1965. “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
27
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. “Nor
28
does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
3
1
enhancements.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. at 1966).
2
If the court grants a motion to dismiss a complaint, it must then decide whether to grant
3
leave to amend. The court should “freely give” leave to amend when there is no “undue delay,
4
bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant . . . undue prejudice to the opposing party
5
by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2);
6
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Generally,
7
leave to amend is only denied when it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be
8
cured by amendment. See DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir.
9
1992).
DISCUSSION
10
11
Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A. file a motion to dismiss
12
Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety with prejudice.1 (Mot. to Dismiss (#5) at 1). Defendants
13
assert that this Court has repeatedly rejected the argument that Plaintiff’s debt under the note
14
and deed of trust are satisfied because the mortgage was pooled and securitized. (Id. at 4).
15
Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for intentional misrepresentation with
16
Rule 9(b) specificity. (Id. at 6-8).
Plaintiff, pro se, filed a response and Defendants filed a reply. (Opp’n to Mot. to
17
18
Dismiss (#10); Reply to Mot. to Dismiss (#11)).
19
As an initial matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard
20
applies to claims for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation.
21
G.K. Las Vegas Ltd. P’ship v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc., 460 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1238, 1244 (D.
22
Nev. 2006). Rule 9(b) provides that “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with
23
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and
24
other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Under
25
Rule 9(b), a plaintiff must be specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular
26
misconduct so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done
27
28
1
Defendant Loop Capital Markets LLC filed a joinder to the motion to dismiss. (Joinder
(#18)).
4
1
anything wrong. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).
2
“Averments of fraud must be accompanied by ‘the who, what, when, where, and how’ of the
3
misconduct charged.” Id. A “plaintiff must set forth more than the neutral facts necessary to
4
identify the transaction. The plaintiff must set forth what is false or misleading about a
5
statement, and why it is false.” Id.
6
In Nevada, negligent misrepresentation is defined as “[o]ne who, in the course of his
7
business, profession or employment, or in any other action in which he has a pecuniary
8
interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions,
9
is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the
10
information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or
11
communicating the information.” Barmettler v. Reno Air, Inc., 956 P.2d 1382, 1387 (Nev.
12
1998). In Nevada, the elements of intentional representation are: “a false representation made
13
with knowledge or belief that it is false or without a sufficient basis of information, intent to
14
induce reliance, and damage resulting from the reliance.” Collins v. Burns, 741 P.2d 819, 821
15
(Nev. 1987).
16
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s three-page complaint fails to plead intentional and
17
negligent misrepresentation with Rule 9(b) specificity. The complaint does not identify a false
18
or misleading statement or explain why the statement was false. Additionally, Plaintiff does
19
not identify the who, what, when, where, or how of the alleged misconduct but instead states
20
that “[d]iscovery reveals” that the alleged misconduct occurred. (See Compl. (#1-1) at 3). As
21
such, the complaint fails to state a claim.
22
Additionally, the Court finds that amendment to the complaint would be futile. Plaintiff’s
23
entire complaint is based on the idea that securitization inherently changes the existing legal
24
relationship between the parties to the extent that the original parties cease to occupy the roles
25
they did at closing.
26
2:11-cv-100-JCM-RJJ, 2011 WL 1322775, *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 5, 2011). Courts in this district
27
have rejected this argument “because the securitization of a loan does not in fact alter or affect
28
the legal beneficiary’s standing to enforce the deed of trust.” Id. Courts in this district have
(See Compl. (#1-1) at 3); see Reyes v. GMAC Mortgage LLC,
5
1
found that claims arising out of securitization fail because “securitization merely creates a
2
separate contract, distinct from plaintiffs’ debt obligations under the note and does not change
3
the relationship of the parties in any way.” Id. (internal alterations and quotations omitted).
4
As such, the Court finds that any amendment to Plaintiff’s securitization argument is futile and
5
denies leave to amend the complaint. Accordingly, this Court grants Defendants Wells Fargo
6
Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss (#5) and Loop Capital Markets
7
LLC’s Joinder to the Motion to Dismiss (#18) in its entirety with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
8
9
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
10
and Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss (#5) is GRANTED in its entirety with prejudice.
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Loop Capital Markets LLC’s Joinder to the Motion to
12
13
14
Dismiss (#18) is GRANTED in its entirety with prejudice.
There are no remaining claims or parties in this case. The Clerk of the Court shall enter
judgment accordingly.
15
16
DATED: This _____ day of October, 2013.
15th
17
18
_________________________________
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?