Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Teri H. Nguyen v. Bank of America National Association

July 29, 2011

TERI H. NGUYEN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,
AND DOES 1 TO 99,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

United States District Court For the Northern District of California against Defendants, all arising out of the attempted foreclosure of property located at 15520 Quito Plaintiff states that a Notice of Sale was recorded on June 30, 2011, setting an auction date of August 2, 2011. On July 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary 23 restraining order (TRO). Plaintiff seeks an injunction preventing the foreclosure sale from going 24 forward on August 2, 2011. On July 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a declination to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. On July 27, 2011, the case was reassigned to the undersigned 26 judge. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Restraining Order. Although Plaintiff has filed proof-of-service showing that the Complaint was 28 served on the designated agent for service of process for both Defendants, Plaintiff has not filed

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff Nguyen filed a complaint asserting various causes of action Road, Monte Sereno, California (the Property). See Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.). In the Complaint, proof-of-service of the Application for TRO. Instead, Plaintiff's attorney filed a statement 2 indicating that he mailed the Application to Defendants' agent for service on July 21, 2011, and 3 that he believes the Application should have been received by July 22, 2011. Defendants have not 4 yet appeared in this case, and therefore have not received notice via electronic case filing.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court summarizes the relevant factual allegations here. Plaintiff alleges that she is the "original owner" of the Property. Compl. ¶ 1. In April, 2007, Plaintiff refinanced her mortgage on 8 the property by borrowing $2,500,000 from Washington Mutual Bank, N.A. (WaMu). Compl. ¶ 9 County Recorder's Office on May 1, 2007. Compl. ¶ 12, Ex. 1. Plaintiff also opened a Home Equity Line of Credit account with WaMu in the amount of $855,000. Compl. ¶ 12. The credit 12 line was also secured by a deed of trust to the Property. Compl. Ex. 2. 13 Plaintiff alleges that "in about June 2007" the Note and Deed of Trust were transferred to a depositor, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation, which in turn deposited the Note and Deed of Plaintiff alleges that the trustee for the trust was LaSalle Bank National Association. Plaintiff 17 states that "whether or not the Note and the DOT [Deed of Trust] were actually delivered" from WaMu to the depositor to the trust is unknown. Compl. ¶ 34. Plaintiff also alleges that WaMu 19 retained only the servicing rights to the loan, while all other interest was transferred to the trust.

Plaintiff alleges that she made payments to WaMu until September 25, 2008, when "WaMu 22 was shut down by the government" and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation "sold 23 WaMu['s] assets to [Defendant JPMorgan] Chase [Bank] for 1.9 billion." Compl. ¶ 14. Plaintiff 24 alleges that she continued to make loan payments to JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase), as servicer of 25 the loan, until December, 2008, when she suffered a serious health problem and sought loan 26 modification. Plaintiff and Chase did not reach an agreement to modify her loan, however. the $2,500,000 loan to Bank of America National Association, successor by merger to LaSalle. The note was secured by a deed of trust to the Property, and was recorded in the Santa Clara For the Northern District of California United States District Court Trust into the "WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-HY7 Trust." Compl. ¶ 33. 16 Compl. ¶ 35. 21 On March 27, 2009, Chase executed an Assignment of the Deed of Trust associated with Bank NA as trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-HY7 Trust (BoA). Compl. ¶ 17. This Assignment is attached as Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff's Complaint, and was recorded 3 on March 30, 2009. Id. The Assignment stated that Chase assigned "all beneficial interest" under 4 the Deed of Trust to BoA, and that California Reconveyance Company (CRC) was appointed 5 trustee. Compl. Ex. 3. 6 $69,254.20 behind in payments on the $2,500,000 loan. Compl. Ex. 4. Plaintiff alleges that a 2009. Although Plaintiff attaches a copy of what appears to be a Notice of Trustee's sale, the copy On March 30, 2009, Plaintiff alleges that CRC recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell the Property. Compl. ¶ 18. The Notice of Default states that as of March, 2009, Plaintiff was Notice of Trustee's Sale setting a foreclosure sale for August 4, 2009 was recorded on July 20, 10 appended to the Complaint was not recorded. See Compl. Ex. 5. Plaintiff alleges that "a few days 12 before the scheduled date of auction," she filed a Complaint against Chase in state court, and 13 applied ex-parte for a TRO to stop the August 4, 2009 auction. Compl. ¶ 21. The state court 14 granted the TRO, and set a hearing in January, 2010. Id. Plaintiff asserts that Chase appeared at 15 the hearing and argued that it was the owner of the Note, and that the Court denied the motion for 16 continued injunction on this basis. Compl. ¶ 22. Following this, Plaintiff alleges that Chase 17 scheduled an auction for February 2, 2010, and that Plaintiff responded by transferring title in the ¶ 24. Rose Court LLC then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. 2021 submitted a claim based on the $2,500,000 loan, and filed a Motion for Relief from Stay imposed 22 by the bankruptcy proceedings. Compl. Ex. 7. Plaintiff alleges that during these proceedings, BofA presented a new assignment of Deed of Trust from Chase dated August 24, 2010, but that 24 this assignment was never recorded. Plaintiff alleges that at the same time, she continued to 25 negotiate with Chase about a modification to her loan. Compl. ¶ 27. Plaintiff alleges that Chase 26 stated it would not consider modification until the bankruptcy was withdrawn, and that "[i]n 27 reliance on this representation, in May 2011, the debtor withdrew the Chapter 11 case." Id. It is 28

Property to Rose Court LLC "which was better equipped to deal with foreclosing lenders." Compl. 19 During the bankruptcy proceedings, Plaintiff alleges that BofA (rather than Chase) not clear from the complaint what the relationship between Rose Court LLC and Plaintiff is, or 2 whether title has been transferred back to Plaintiff from Rose Court LLC. 3

4 new Notice of Sale setting an auction date for August 2, 2011. Compl. ¶ 38. This Notice of Sale is 5 attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 12, and states that the outstanding balance on the loan was $3,013,405.50 as of June 30, 2011. Compl. Ex. 12. There is no mention of Chase or BofA 7 anywhere on the Notice of Sale. injunction. Brown Jordan Int'l, Inc. v. Mind's Eye Interiors, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (D.Finally, Plaintiff alleges that on June 30, 2011, CRC "as instructed by Chase" recorded a

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

The standard for issuing a TRO is identical to the standard for issuing a preliminary Haw. 2002); Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 United States District Court For the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal. 1995). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 13 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 14 relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." 15 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The party seeking the 16 injunction bears the burden of proving these elements. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584 F. 3d 17 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009). The issuance of a preliminary injunction is at the discretion of the 18 district court. Indep. Living Ctr. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F.3d 644, 651 (9th Cir. 2009). 19 20 restraining order without notice to the opposing party only if: "A) specific facts in an affidavit or a 21 verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to 22 the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and B) the movant's attorney 23 certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." 24

Additionally, Civil Local Rule 65-1(b) states that, unless relieved by the Court for good cause 25 shown, "on or before the day of an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, counsel 26 applying for the temporary restraining order must deliver notice of such motion to opposing 27 counsel or party." 28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) states that a court may issue a temporary

IV. DISCUSSION success on two of the causes of action alleged in her Complaint: 1) whether the "Defendants have 3 standing to do what they are doing"; and 2) her claim of Wrongful Foreclosure. Both of these 4 claims rest on Plaintiff's argument that because there is no proof that the original Note was 5 transferred to Chase or to BofA, neither entity has the right to foreclose on the Property. However, 6 based only on the Complaint and the documents attached to it, it appears that the Note and Deed of June, 2007, WaMu transferred the Note and Deed of Trust to the WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through September, 2008, Chase bought all of WaMu's assets, including the servicing rights to Plaintiff's 11 loan. Third, Chase transferred all of its beneficial eaning the servicing rights) interest in the loan (m 12 to BofA, "successor by merger to LaSalle Bank NA as trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.