Bank of New York Mellon v. Stabenow et al

Filing 52

CIVIL MINUTE ORDER: Bank of New York Mellon's Motion to Remand 28 is DENIED. Bank of America's Request for Judicial Notice 25 is GRANTED. The Stabenows' request for Judicial Notice 32 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Stabenows' request for Judicial Notice 47 is DENIED. Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss 24 and Shellpoint's Motion to Dismiss 45 are GRANTED. Ordered by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Download PDF
home loan modification was denied by Bank of America and Shellpoint due to the NPV calculations. The Stabenows must also clearly identify statutory authority supporting the claim that the missing NPV values were required to be provided by Bank of America and Shellpoint. Claim Seven is DISMISSED with prejudice as to Bank of America because the alleged fraudulent inducement by Bank of America occurred outside of the two-year statute of limitations, and I find no grounds for equitable tolling exist under the facts presented. Claim Seven is DISMISSED with leave to amend as to Shellpoint. The Stabenows must amend this claim to allege facts to support the heightened pleading standard for fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The Stabenows must allege specific facts with particularity about what misrepresentation was made; its falsity; its materiality; the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of the truth; the speaker's intent that it should be acted on by the Stabenows; the Stabenows' ignorance of its falsity; the Stabenows' reliance on its truth; their right to rely on the truth of the statement; and their consequent and proximate injury. Merten v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 234 Or. App. 407, 416 (2010); Meixner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 101 F. Supp. 3d 938, 956 (E.D. Cal 2015). PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL cc:{ } All counsel Civil Minutes Revised 3/15/96 DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL DOCUMENT NO: Honorable Michael W. Mosman

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?