The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This case comes before the Court on Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion.
Plaintiffs Martha Mendez and Fernando Mendez, proceeding pro se, are the former owners of real property located at 3520 - 3522 Nile Street, San Diego, California 92104. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs purchased the property on June 7, 2004, with a loan in the amount of $640,000. (Id. ¶¶ 20-21.) Plaintiffs allege they were not provided copies of certain documents at loan closing, nor did anyone explain the terms of the loan to them. (Id. ¶¶ 20-27.)
On November 13, 2009, Plaintiffs' lender filed a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust on Plaintiffs' property. (Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot., Ex. 2.)
On April 14, 2010, Plaintiffs' lender filed a Notice of Trustee's Sale of Plaintiffs' property, scheduling a sale for May 6, 2010. (Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot., Ex. 5.) Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust purchased the property at the Trustee's Sale, after which the Deed of Trust was transferred to Deutsche Bank on May 14, 2010. (Req. for Judicial Notice in Supp. of Mot., Ex. 6.)
On August 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the present case against Defendants Oakmont Mortgage Company, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") and Deutsche Bank in San Diego Superior Court. The Complaint alleges claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, misrepresentation/fraud, quiet title and unfair business practices. On September 21, 2010, Defendants Deutsche Bank and MERS removed Plaintiffs' case to this Court. The present motion followed.
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. They argue each of Plaintiffs' claims fails to state a claim for relief. Plaintiffs dispute Defendants' arguments and oppose dismissal of their claims.
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 ...