The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC AND RWPO III, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS; and GRANTING DEFENDANT GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS FORECLOSURE Doc. Nos. 35, 36
Plaintiff Lourdes Sanchez ("Plaintiff") filed this action raising claims related to a residential mortgage transaction. (Doc. No. 1). After Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLP ("Ocwen") and RWPO III, LLC ("RWPO") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") as a matter of course. (Doc. Nos. 5, 14). Ocwen and RWPO then filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (Doc. No. 19). In addition, Defendant GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. ("GreenPoint") filed a separate motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 20). The court granted in part and denied in part Ocwen and RWPO's motion to dismiss, and granted Greenpoint's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 33). With leave of court, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint ("SAC"). (Doc. No. 34). All three parties have now filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint. (Doc. Nos. 35, 36).
The court finds this matter appropriate for determination without oral argument. See CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Ocwen and RWPO's motion to dismiss without leave to amend. The court GRANTS GreenPoint's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
In July 2007, Plaintiff purchased a home with financing borrowed from GreenPoint. (SAC ¶ 6). Plaintiff used Defendant Coastal Empire Mortgage as her broker. (SAC ¶ 8). Ocwen was Plaintiff's loan servicer. (SAC ¶ 7). At some point, "Plaintiff began having difficulty paying her mortgage." (SAC ¶ 20). As a result, Plaintiff received notice of a trustee's sale indicating that Plaintiff's home would be sold at a foreclosure sale in September 2009. (SAC ¶¶ 20, 23). Sometime in the last year, Plaintiff conducted a "forensic audit" which allegedly revealed various irregularities and legal violations related to Plaintiff's loan. (SAC ¶ 81).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d 45, 48 (9th Cir. 1978). In evaluating the motion, the court must construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting as true all material allegations in the complaint and any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. See, e.g., Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003). While Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only in "extraordinary" cases, the complaint's "factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." United States v. Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The court should grant 12(b)(6) relief only if the complaint lacks either a "cognizable legal theory" or facts sufficient to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
A. Ocwen and RWPO's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff asserts just two claims against Ocwen and RWPO in her second amended complaint: (1) violation of RESPA section 2605; and (2) quiet title.
1. RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2605
The court has already found that Plaintiff stated a claim for relief under RESPA section 2605 in her first amended complaint. (See Doc. No. 33). Accordingly, Ocwen and RWPO's motion to dismiss the claim is denied.
Plaintiff has not repaired the deficiencies of her first amended complaint with her second amended complaint. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to ...