The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 35]
Presently before the Court is Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.'s ("Countrywide") motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). (Doc. 35.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On or about December 19, 2005, Plaintiffs Davide Azzini and Mario Rosa ("Plaintiffs") executed a loan on real property located in Imperial Beach, California. (SAC ¶¶ 7, 47.) Plaintiffs allege that multiple defendants engaged in unlawful lending practices. (Id. at ¶¶ 19-70.) As to Defendant Countrywide, Plaintiffs allege five claims for relief: (1) fraud; (2) negligence; (3) violation of California's Rosenthal Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, et seq.; (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (5) violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2605, et seq..
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 16, 2009. (Doc. 1.) Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss, which this Court denied as moot after Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (Docs. 19-21.) On December 29, 2009, the Court granted Countrywide's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' FAC. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiffs filed the SAC on January 18, 2010. (Doc. 33.) Countrywide filed the instant motion on February 4, 2009, (Doc. 35), and Plaintiffs filed an opposition. (Doc. 36.) Countrywide did not reply.
In two recent opinions, the Supreme Court established a more stringent standard of review for 12(b)(6) motions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss under this new standard, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "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." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 1950 (citing Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007)). In Iqbal, the Court began this task "by identifying the allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Id. at 1951. It then considered "the factual allegations in respondent's complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief." Id. at 1951.
Countrywide moves to dismiss all claims against it for failing to state a claim. Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss without prejudice the RESPA claim. The remaining claims are addressed in turn.
Defendant argues Plaintiffs' fraud claim is not pled with particularity, as required by Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A pleading will be "sufficient under Rule 9(b) if it identifies the circumstances of the alleged fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate answer." Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.1995). The same is true for allegations of fraudulent conduct. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2003). In other words, fraud allegations must be accompanied by "the who, what, when, where, and how" of the misconduct charged. Id. at 1106. The elements of a fraud claim are false representation, knowledge of falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and damages. Id.
Plaintiffs' fraud claims are based largely on allegations related to other Defendants, not Countrywide. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Morningstar, Morgan, Duhommel, Crowder, Kwasny and Johnson were all involved in fraudulently inducing Plaintiffs into a predatory loan. Plaintiffs contend Defendant Home Capital committed fraud when it approved the loans despite its knowledge that the loan contained false information. As to Defendant Countrywide, however, Plaintiffs argue that Countrywide "tacitly accepted and endorsed" the fraud when it collected mortgage payments from Plaintiffs after being told in a QWR that the loans were void due to fraud at the inception. Assuming this constitutes a false representation, Plaintiffs fail to allege justifiable reliance and intent to defraud. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege Countrywide added costs and charges to the payoff amount of the Note that were not proper, but there is no explanation of what these charges were or why they were fraudulent. Plaintiffs also argue that Countrywide encouraged its employees and agents to act in a fraudulent manner, but there is no explanation of what employees were told or how their actions were fraudulent. Accordingly, the Court grants Countrywide's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first cause of action for fraud.
Countrywide contends the negligence claim fails because it does not owe a duty of care to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argue Countrywide has a duty to perform its lender/servicing function in such a manner as to not cause Plaintiffs harm, and that it breached the duty of care by failing to ensure it had properly acquired an interest in the Notes, by taking payments to which it was not entitled, and by wrongfully making negative reports ...