The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
This case comes before the Court on Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion.
On June 21, 2007, Plaintiff Carlos Carillo obtained two loans from Countrywide Bank, F.S.B. relating to real property located in Escondido, California. It appears the purpose of the loans was to refinance Plaintiff's mortgage with a new home loan and a home equity line of credit.
On September 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in San Diego Superior Court against Defendants Countrywide Home Loans and Countrywide Brokerage Arm relating to the loans. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged claims for violation of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ("RESPA"), violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), violation of California Civil Code § 1632, violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, rescission, quasi contract, and determination of validity of lien. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Defendant CHL") removed the case to this Court on November 30, 2009.
On December 15, 2009, this Court held an informal conference with counsel concerning Defendant CHL's anticipated challenge to the Complaint. Thereafter, Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Plaintiff filed the FAC on January 13, 2010. The FAC realleges the claims in the original Complaint, and adds the following claims for relief: (1) negligence, (2) aiding and abetting negligence, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) fraud. The FAC also adds as Defendants Countrywide Bank, FSB and BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP f/k/a/ Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP ("Defendant BAC"). In response to the FAC, Defendant CHL filed the present motion.
Defendant CHL moves to dismiss the FAC in its entirety. It argues Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the pleading requirements for each individual claim.
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 ...