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