The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART BOFA's MOTION TO DISMISS AND DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS' STATE LAW CLAIMS*fn1
On December 29, 2009, Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA")*fn2 filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), in which it argues Plaintiffs' first amended complaint should be dismissed. (Docket No. 29.) Plaintiffs' claims relate to a mortgage loan transaction and foreclosure proceedings involving their property located at 27600 Cloverleaf Drive in Helendale, California. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' sole federal claim is dismissed with prejudice and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion "challenges a complaint's compliance with . . . pleading requirements." Champlaie v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. S-09-1316 LKK/DAD, 2009 WL 3429622, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2009). A pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the [plaintiff's] claim is and the grounds upon which relief rests . . . ." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Further, "[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
To avoid dismissal, the plaintiff must allege "only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Plausibility, however, requires more than "a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "When a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Id. (quotations and citation omitted).
In evaluating a dismissal motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court "accept[s] as true all facts alleged in the complaint, and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 2009). However, neither conclusory statements nor legal conclusions are entitled to a presumption of truth. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50.
BofA requests that judicial notice be taken of four documents related to Plaintiffs' mortgage loan which are publically recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County: a May 5, 2005 Deed of Trust, a May 21, 2009 Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust, a July 7, 2009 Substitution of Trustee and a September 23, 2009 Notice of Trustee's Sale. (Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN") Exs. A-D.)
"[A]s a general rule, a district court may not consider materials not originally included in the pleadings in deciding a Rule 12 motion[,] . . . [however,] it may take judicial notice of matters of public record and may consider them without converting a Rule 12 motion into one for summary judgment." United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotations and citations omitted). The Court may take judicial notice of a fact that is either "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court" or "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The documents BofA submits are publically recorded and are proper for judicial notice. See Champlaie, 2009 WL 3429622, at *4 (finding judicial notice of recorded Notice of Default, Notice of Trustee's Sale, and Trustee's Deed Upon Sale proper). Therefore, BofA's request for judicial notice is granted.
Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this action on October 12, 2009, in which they alleged nine claims under California law and a federal claim under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). Plaintiffs filed their now operative first amended complaint after BofA filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' original complaint.
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint explicitly identifies six claims, all alleged under California law. However, in the "Jurisdiction and Venue Section" of their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that "[t]his is an action asserting violations of Federal Statutes commonly known as TILA, RESPA, Regulation Z, and [RICO]." Despite this allegation, Plaintiffs' amended complaint only includes a conclusory allegation of a TILA violation. Specifically, in the "Factual Background" section of their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that their mortgage loan was subject to TILA's disclosure requirements, they did not receive the statutorily required disclosures, and as a result, they are entitled to damages. (First Amended Compl. 6:3-8.) Plaintiffs, however, do not argue in their opposition that they are alleging a TILA claim.
A. Plaintiffs' TILA Claim
BofA argues that to the extent Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges a TILA claim, it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations and should be dismissed. (MTD 3 n.3.) ...