Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Pottinger v. Accredited Home Lenders

March 10, 2009


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge


Presently before the Court is Defendant Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.'s unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion is granted with leave to amend.*fn1


The extent of Plaintiff's factual allegations are as follows. On November 10, 2006, Plaintiff executed mortgages and notes with Defendant. Defendant allegedly failed to explain statutory requirements to Plaintiff or to provide various disclosures and estimates as required by law. Additionally, according to Plaintiff, Defendant engaged in predatory lending by failing to consider Plaintiff's ability to repay the underlying loan. Ultimately, Defendant foreclosed on the subject property.

Plaintiff filed this action in Solano County Superior Court on or about December 11, 2008, and Defendant subsequently removed to this Court on January 20, 2009. Through her Complaint, Plaintiff contends Defendant violated various sections of the California Business and Professions Code, the California Civil Code, and the California Financial Code, breached its fiduciary duty to her, violated the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and engaged in acts constituting fraud and conspiracy. Plaintiff seeks damages, rescission and to enjoin "post-foreclosure attempts at dislocation."


On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the...claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the "grounds" of his "entitlement to relief" requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ---U.S. ----, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Id. at 1965 (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-36 (3d ed. 2004) ("The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action")).

A court granting a motion to dismiss a complaint must then decide whether to grant leave to amend. A court should "freely give[]" leave to amend when there is no "undue delay, bad faith[,] dilatory motive on the part of the movant,... undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of... the amendment, [or] futility of the amendment...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Generally, leave to amend is denied only when it is clear the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992).


1. Violation of the California Business and Professions Code and California Civil Code

According to Plaintiff, Defendant violated various sections of California Business and Professions Code § 10240 and California Civil Code §§ 1102, et seq., and 2079. However, these sections apply either to actions taken by a real estate broker or to the transfer of real property. Since Defendant is not such a broker and Plaintiff does not allege that any property was transferred, none of these sections apply. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First and Second Causes of Action is granted with leave to amend.

2. Violation of the California Financial Code

Plaintiff next contends that Defendant violated California Financial Code § 4973, which enumerates prohibited acts pertaining to "covered loans." A covered loan is "a consumer loan in which the original principal balance of the loan does not exceed the most current conforming loan limit for a single-family first mortgage established by the Federal National Mortgage Association in the case of a mortgage or deed of trust, and where one of the following conditions: (1) For a mortgage or deed of trust, the annual percentage rate at consummation of the transaction will exceed by more than 8 percentage points the yield on Treasury securities having comparable periods of maturity on the 15th day of the month immediately preceding the month in which the application for the extension of credit is received by the creditor; [or] (2) The total points and fees payable by the consumer at or before closing for a mortgage or deed of trust will exceed 6 percent of the total loan amounts." Cal. Fin. Code § 4970.

Plaintiff alleges no facts indicating that the subject loan qualifies as "covered" under section 4970. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the California Financial Code and ...

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.