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.

Lenear v. American Brokers Conduit

November 5, 2009

CATHERINE T. LENEAR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT; SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION; ACCUMAX INVESTMENT CO.; ALL PERSONS CURRENTLY UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE TRUST PROPERTY; DOES ONE THROUGH ONE HUNDRED, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Presently before the Court are Motions by Defendants EMC Mortgage Corp. and Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).*fn1 For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND*fn2

Plaintiff Catherine Lenear ("Plaintiff" or "Lenear") borrowed $319,200 from the originating lender, Defendant American Brokers Conduit ("ABC"), to purchase real property located in Sacramento, California on May 31, 2007. The loan was secured by a First Deed of Trust against the property with Defendant Saxon Mortgage Services ("Saxon") acting as servicer. Concurrently, Lenear also executed a Home Equity Line of Credit ("HELOC") in the amount of $79,800 from ABC. The HELOC was secured by a Second Deed of Trust against the property with Defendant EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") acting as servicer. By April 23, 2009, Lenear had defaulted on the First Deed of Trust resulting in a non-judicial foreclosure sale of the property on February 2, 2009.

On May 19, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint against ABC, Saxon, EMC, Accumax Investment Company ("Accumax"), and all related loan officers. The complaint contains numerous causes of action including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty; intentional infliction of emotional distress; fraud; negligence; negligence per se; engaging in unlawful business practices in violation of state and federal laws*fn3; violations of both state and federal lending laws*fn4; and engaging in an unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1964. Plaintiff's complaint also seeks a judicial declaration of the respective parties' rights.

Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to rescind the Promissory Note and First Deed of Trust based on allegations of fraud and unlawful behavior. In her complaint, Plaintiff offers to restore the property to Defendants "ABC/Saxon" in return for all money paid by Plaintiff to the Defendants, plus the reasonable value of any improvements and maintenance made to the property.

Defendants EMC and Saxon now file a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Saxon also moves to strike portions of the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), and both parties seek judicial notice of various exhibits including a copy of the grant deed, the deed of trust, the notices of default, and plaintiff's Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 history.

STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss

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." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting 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. Id. at 1964-65 (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")).

"Rule 8(a)(2)...requires a 'showing,' rather than a blanket assertion of entitlement to relief. Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirements of providing not only 'fair notice' of the nature of the claim, but also 'grounds' on which the claim rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. 556 n.3. A pleading must contain "only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. If the "plaintiffs...have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed." Id.

Nevertheless, "[a] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and 'that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.'" Id. at 556.

When a claim for fraud is raised, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) provides that "a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud." "A pleading is sufficient under Rule 9(b) if it identifies the circumstances constituting fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations." Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d 666, 671-672 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations and citations omitted). "The complaint must specify such facts as the times, dates, places, benefits received, and other details of the alleged fraudulent activity." Id. at 672.

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 ...


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.