The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Pending before the Court are the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Marriott Vacation Club International, Chase Home Finance, and Loanstar Mortgage Services. (Docs. # 3, 4, 35). The Court finds these matters suitable for submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1).
On November 7, 2006, Plaintiff Rodney L. Belle filed the Complaint in this matter, asserting various claims against Defendants Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase), Loanstar Mortgage Services, LLC (Loanstar), Marriott Vacation Club International (Marriott), and Novastar Mortgage, Inc. (Novastar). (Doc. # 1). On December 1, 2006, Defendant Chase moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), and in the alternative, moved for a more definite statement pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e). (Doc. # 3). On December 5, 2006, Defendant Marriott moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2), (b)(5), and (b)(6). (Doc. # 4). In the alternative, Defendant Marriott moved for a more definite statement pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e). (Doc. # 4). On May 18, 2007, Loanstar joined Chase's motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 35). In opposing the motions to dismiss, Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 21). The Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to cite law or facts which supported a preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 24).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Rodney Belle alleges that on or about July of 2006, he entered into an agreement with Defendants Chase, Loanstar, Novastar, and Marriott. Complaint at 3. Though it is not entirely clear, the agreement appears to relate to real property in San Diego, and Plaintiff alleges that he "honored/ tendered in full with good faith funds the said amount of the property ($400,000.00 to over $600,000.000) by commercial instrument No. 4443800530 . . . ." Compl. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that this controversy is over Four Hundred Thousand to over Six Hundred Thousand Dollars and it also involves real properties; located at 640 Pyramid St. San Diego, CA 92114 (loan no. 20929816 of Chase Home Finance, LLC and Loanstar Mortgage Service, LLC/ Loan No 2013993 Nova Star Mortgage Inc./ Loan No. 0014405549.
Apparently related to the above agreement, or perhaps related to a "settlement agreement" or other "stipulations," Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "dishonored/failed to give full disclosure pursuant to Regulation Z of the Truth-in-Lending Act pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act . . . ." Compl. at 4, 9. In addition, Defendants failed to disclose "that the original loan was created by a check book entry, which may be sold in the open market (as a promissory note) for 80-90 cents on the dollar with no consideration to the plaintiff." Compl. at 13. Defendants also failed to disclose that "lawful money was loaned out." Compl. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "refused to sign . . . under the penalty of perjury by sworn Affidavit/Jurat that . . . lawful money was loaned out . . . ." Compl. at 5, 9. Defendants "declined in setting a public conference and invitation of the press/ media in front of" Defendants' places of business. Compl. at 9.
Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants "counterfeited securities" in violation of the Security and Exchange Commission Act of 1933 and 1934. See Compl. at 10-11, 14. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated the International Protocol of the United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes. Compl. at 1, 9-10. Finally, Plaintiff briefly alleges a breach of contract (Compl. at 6), violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Compl. at 16), and violations of the Uniform Commercial Code (Compl. at 3, 7, 14).
Though it is not entirely clear what relief Plaintiff is seeking, it appears that Plaintiff would like the Court to enforce the terms of an undisclosed "settlement agreement," and or to order reconveyance of a deed of trust. Compl. at 4, 17-18.
STANDARD OF REVIEW FED. R. CIV. P. 8 requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). "The Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy; however every complaint must, at a minimum, give fair notice and state the elements of each claim against each defendant plainly and succinctly." Rasidescu v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1098-99 (S.D. Cal. 2006). When presented with a pro se complainant, the pleadings must be construed liberally, and the plaintiff must be given the "benefit of any doubt." Abassi v. I.N.S., 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). However, "even pro se plaintiffs must allege, with at least some degree of particularity, overt acts taken by [the] defendant which support his claims." Rasidescu, 435 F. Supp. 2d at 1099.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 48 (9th Cir. 1978). A complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), "unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). In ruling on a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and further, must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond the complaint. Moore v. Costa Mesa, 886 F.2d 260, 262 (9th Cir. 1989).
Defendants Chase and Marriott move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. # 4). Defendants contend that the Complaint is undecipherable, confusing, and does not put them on notice of the specific claims against them. Defendants further contend that the Complaint does not comply with FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), and that there are insufficient allegations to support the various claims. Defendant Marriott moves to dismiss on ...