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.

Angela Lent v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank

November 29, 2011

ANGELA LENT
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Title:

Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's ("Freddie Mac") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Angela Lent's ("Plaintiff") Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") (Dkt. 42). The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for December 5, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. is VACATED. After considering the moving, opposing and replying papers, and for the reasons stated below, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a homeowner fighting to keep home. Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to secure modification of her home loan. Although one of Plaintiff's requested modifications was approved, the modification was canceled shortly after it was granted. Plaintiff brings claims against JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JP Morgan"), Chase Home Finance LLC ("Chase Home"), Freddie Mac, and Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation ("Cal-Western") for (1) declaratory relief, (2) injunctive relief, (3) quiet title, (4) breach of contract, (5) Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (against JP Morgan only), and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress (against JP Morgan only).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must be dismissed when a plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dismissal for failure to state a claim does not require the appearance, beyond a doubt, that the plaintiff can prove "no set of facts" in support of its claim that would entitle it to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1968 (2007) (abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). In order for a complaint to survive a 12(b)(6) motion, it must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). A claim for relief is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads enough facts that, when taken as true, allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged conduct. Id. at 1949. If the facts only allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is possibly liable, then the complaint must be dismissed. Id. Mere legal conclusions need ...


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.