Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Belle v. Chase Home Finance LLC

October 31, 2007

RODNEY L. BELLE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; LOANSTAR MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC; AND NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC and joined by Loanstar Mortgage Services, LLC. (Docs. # 39, 40). The court finds this matter suitable for submission on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

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), Marriot Vacation Club International (Marriot), and Novastar Mortgage, Inc. (Novastar). (Doc. # 1). On December 1, 2006, Defendant Chase moved to dismiss the Complaint 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 Marriot 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). On May 18, 2007, Loanstar joined Chase's motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 35). On May 22, 2007, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. (Doc. # 37).

On June 21, 2007, Plaintiff Belle timely filed an amended complaint. (Doc. # 38). On July 9, 2007, Defendant Chase again moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. # 39). On July 12, 2007, Loanstar joined Chase's motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 40). Plaintiff Belle did not file an opposition to Defendant Chase's motion to dismiss.

ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Rodney Belle alleges that in or about July of 2006, he entered into an agreement with Defendants Chase, Lonestar, and Novastar. Amended Complaint at 6. Though it is not entirely clear, the agreement appears to pertain to real properties located in San Diego and San Bernardino. Amend. Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that he "honored/ tendered in full with good faith funds the said amount of the property ($400,000.00 to over $600,000.00) by commercial instrument No. 4443800530 . . . ." Amend. Compl. at 7.

Plaintiff specifically alleges that

[t]his controversy 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 and Second Location 777 W. 27th , San Bernardino Ca.92405 and this said amount of the controversy is under Nine Hundred Thousand dollars.

Amend. Compl. at 2.

Ostensibly 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 . . . ." Amend. Compl. at 7. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to "sign under there [sic] full commercial liability under the penalty of perjury by sworn Affidavit/ Jurat that...lawful money was loaned out . . . ." Amend. Compl. at 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in "dishonor/ unethical and outrageous business practice" and that the "general public and the public at large are in jeopardy due to these unethical business practices . . . ." Amend. Compl. at 9.

Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants "counterfeited securities" in violation of the Security and Exchange Commission Act of 1933 and 1934. Amend. Compl. at 11-13. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated the International Protocol of the United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes. Amend. Compl. at 11-12, 17. Finally, Plaintiff briefly alleges a breach of contract (Amend. Compl. at 9), violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Amend. Compl. at 17), a violation of the Uniform Commercial Code (Amend. Compl. at 10) and a violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (Amend. Compl. at 5).

Although it is difficult to discern what relief Plaintiff is requesting, it appears Plaintiff would like the Court to enforce the terms of an undisclosed "settlement agreement" and or order ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.