The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen
Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN
Alicia Mamer Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not present Not present
Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND REMANDING STATE CLAIMS TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (In Chambers)
The matter is before the Court on Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") and California Reconveyance Company's (collectively "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Christian Ashton's ("Plaintiff") Complaint (docket no. 5), filed on August 5, 2011. On September 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Opposition.*fn1 (Docket no. 9.) On September 12, 2011, Defendants filed a Reply. (Docket no. 11.) The Court has considered these pleadings and deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for September 26, 2011, is vacated.
For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion, DISMISSES Plaintiff's federal claims, and REMANDS the state claims to Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.*fn2
On or about November 6, 2007, Plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan from Washington Mutual Bank for a sum of $1,880,000.00. (FAC ¶ 1.) Plaintiff defaulted on the loan, and on January 3, 2011, Chase purchased the Property at a trustee's sale.
On May 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Defendants removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction on July 29, 2011. (Docket no. 1.)
Plaintiff's FAC asserts twenty-four causes of action, of which only two are alleged violations of federal law: violation of Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 (Claim 5), and violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (Claim 6). The remaining claims assert violations of state law.
Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to seek dismissal of a complaint that "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In evaluating a motion to dismiss, courts generally cannot consider material outside the complaint, such as facts presented in briefs, affidavits, or discovery materials, unless such material is alleged in the complaint or judicially noticed. McCalip v. De Legarret, No. CV-08-2250, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87870, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2008); see Jacobson v. AEG Capital Corp., 50 F.3d 1493, 1496 (9th Cir. 1995). Courts must accept as true all material factual allegations in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Nursing Home Pension Fund, Local 144 v. Oracle Corp., 380 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2004). However, this tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Courts need not accept as true ...