The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER GRANTING SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Presently before the Court is defendant Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.'s ("Saxon") motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Saxon's motion.
Plaintiff Celestino de Jesus Vega ("Vega"), proceeding pro se, brings this suit in an apparent attempt to reverse the foreclosure on the deed of trust ("deed") on his home, located at 211 Rainbow Lane in Oceanside, California ("property"). Defendant Regional Trustee Services, Inc. ("Regional") is the trustee on the deed, and Saxon is the servicer of plaintiff's home loan. Plaintiff alleges that both defendants were agents of the deed's beneficiary. After plaintiff defaulted on his loan agreement, a notice of default was recorded against the property. The complaint alleges that on September 4, 2008, "defendants" conducted a trustee's sale of the property.*fn1
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of San Diego County on October 30, 2008. On November 26, 2008, Saxon removed the action to federal court. (Doc. No. 1.) Saxon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on December 5, 2008 (Doc. No. 4,) and a response in support of its motion on January 26, 2009. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Saxon's motion. The Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2009). A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). The court must accept all factual allegations pled in the complaint as true, and must construe them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.1996). To a void a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, rather, it must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). However, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555 (citation omitted). In spite of the deference the court is bound to pay to the plaintiff's allegations, it is not proper for the court to assume that "the [plaintiff] can prove facts that [he or she] has not alleged or that defendants have violated the . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged." Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). The Court recognizes the mandate to construe a pro se plaintiff's pleadings liberally in determining whether a claim has been stated. Ortez v. Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir. 1996).
II. Plaintiff's Complaint
Plaintiff's allegations against all defendants are concentrated in Paragraph V of his sparse complaint. Although it is difficult to discern which causes of action plaintiff intends to bring, Saxon argues and the Court agrees that plaintiff's allegations can be distilled into the following arguments:
A. Defendants engaged in unfair business practices;
B. Defendants committed civil rights ...