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.

Lonzo Lynn Rucker v. Ocwen Loan Servicing

September 6, 2011

LONZO LYNN RUCKER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Docket No. 3]

This case comes before the Court on Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND

This case concerns the real property located at 3212-3214 Newton Avenue, San Diego, California. On July 3, 2006, Scotty and Jeanne G. Schuetz, refinanced their loan on the property. (Compl. ¶ 6.) In March 2009, the lender filed a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust against the Schuetzes' property. (Compl., Ex. B.) Thereafter, the Schuetzes deeded the property to Plaintiff pursuant to a Grant Deed. (Compl. ¶6, Ex. D.) The property was subsequently scheduled for a trustee's sale on January 10, 2011. (Compl., Ex. C.) It appears that sale has yet to occur.

On April 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed the present case in San Diego Superior Court against Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Defendant") and Regional Service Corporation. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief: (1) violation of California Civil Code § 2923.5, (2) fraud, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) violation of California Civil Code § 2923.6, (5) violation of California Civil Code § 1572, (6) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, and (7) violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). Defendant removed the case to this Court on June 6, 2011. The present motion followed.

II.

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. It argues each of Plaintiff's claims fails to state a claim for relief.*fn1

A. Standard of Review

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.

In this case, the Court approaches its task of deciding the motion to dismiss while keeping in mind the admonition from the Supreme Court that "[a] document filed pro se is 'to be liberally construed,' and 'a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)) (internal citations omitted). That Plaintiff is proceeding pro se does not relieve Defendant of its burden to show that dismissal is appropriate. See Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mutual Ins. Co., No. 09-000545 SOM/BMK, 2010 WL 4273111, at *4 (D. Hawaii Oct. 22, 2010) (stating that although pro se complaint "is not a model of clarity," defendant bears burden of persuading court that dismissal is warranted). Furthermore, "a motion to dismiss is not the appropriate procedural vehicle to test the merits of Plaintiff's FAC and the claims asserted therein." Walker v. City of Fresno, No. 1:09-cv-1667-OWW-SKO, 2010 ...


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.