Arant v. JPMortgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 46

ORDER Granting 26 Motion to Dismiss. Denying as moot 40 Motion for Hearing. Amended Complaint due within 20 days. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/22/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
FRANK ARANT,

Case No. 2:14-cv-0386-MMD-VCF

9
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14
15

v.

ORDER

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, CHASE
HOME FINANCE, LLC., EXPRESS
CAPITAL LENDING, INC., EMC
MORTGAGE LLC, NATIONAL DEFAULT
SERVICING CORPORATION, SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., BLACK
AND WHITE CORPORATIONS DOES 110,

(Def.’s Motion to Dismiss - dkt. no. 26)

16
Defendants.

17
18
19

I.

SUMMARY

20

Before the Court is Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (“SPS”) and

21

National Default Servicing Corporation’s (“NDS”) Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”). (Dkt. no.

22

26.) For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted.

23

II.

BACKGROUND

24

At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint is unclear on much of the

25

facts supporting his claims. The Court thus relies on the Motion to obtain the relevant

26

background facts. From these sources, this case appears to involve Plaintiff’s default on

27

a loan and the corresponding foreclosure proceedings on a property in Clark County,

28

Nevada, located at 8117 Chiltern Avenue in Las Vegas (“the Property”).

1

To finance the purchase of the Property, Plaintiff executed a Deed of Trust and

2

Note for $218,400.00. After a series of assignments, the Deed of Trust was recorded by

3

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JPMorgan”) on August 13, 2013. (Dkt. no. 26 at 3.)

4

The parties allude to the fact that Plaintiff defaulted on his loan and that non-

5

judicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated. Again, the Court notes the scarcity of

6

facts provided by the Complaint and by the parties.

7

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

8

A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which

9

relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A properly pleaded complaint must

10

provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

11

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).

12

The Rule 8 notice pleading standard requires Plaintiff to “give the defendant fair notice of

13

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

14

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While Rule 8 does not require detailed

15

factual allegations, it demands more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic

16

recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

17

(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise

18

a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. When

19

determining the sufficiency of a claim, “[w]e accept factual allegations in the complaint as

20

true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-moving party[;

21

however, this tenet does not apply to] . . . legal conclusions . . . cast in the form of factual

22

allegations.” Fayer v. Vaughn, 649 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal

23

quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must

24

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

25

plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation and internal quotation marks

26

omitted).

27

Federal civil pleading is notice pleading. E.g., Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1212-

28

16 (9th Cir. 2011). The notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) can be violated not
2

1

only “when a pleading says too little,” but also “when a pleading says too much.” Knapp

2

v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 57 (Oct. 6,

3

2014); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming a

4

dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing complaints such as the

5

ones plaintiffs filed in this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”).

6

IV.

DISCUSSION

7

The Court concludes that the Complaint says far too much and does so

8

unnecessarily. First, the Complaint is replete with generalized allegations of the

9

transgressions committed by JPMorgan. (Dkt. no. 1 ¶¶ 21(a-r).) Plaintiff generally

10

alleges that Defendants SPS and NDS are responsible for the misdeeds of JPMorgan;

11

however, Plaintiff fails to provide any support for this contention, but rather offers the

12

conclusory allegation that “[e]ach of the corporate defendants are agents of each other

13

and are legally responsible for the acts of omissions of each other.” (Id. ¶ 12.)

14

Moreover, even if the Court were to assume that SPS and NDS are agents of

15

JPMorgan, Plaintiff fails to provide any factual support for what JPMorgan did with

16

respect to his loan so as to impose liability upon these two entities. The Complaint is

17

disjointed, confusing, and fails to provide any factual allegations that would support any

18

plausible claims against Defendants SPS and NDS.

19

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the allegations made in Plaintiff’s Complaint

20

fail to satisfy the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) and do not support claims

21

against either Defendants. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that

22

provides “a short and plain statement of the claim showing” Plaintiff “is entitled to relief.”

23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

24

V.

CONCLUSION

25

It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 26) is granted.

26

It is further ordered that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within twenty (20)

27

days. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims

28

///
3

1

against Defendants SPS and NDS with prejudice. It is further ordered the Defendants’

2

Motion for a Hearing or Ruling (dkt. no. 40) is denied as moot.

3
4

DATED THIS 22nd day of December 2014.

5
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES 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
4