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): GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant JP Morgan Chase ("Chase") (Docket 4). The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. After considering the moving, opposing and replying papers, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff Anh T. Nguyen ("Plaintiff") avers, that on or about July 6, 2005, she used, as collateral, the real property on 16311 Typhoon Lane in Huntington Beach, California, to obtain a loan from Washington Mutual Savings Bank ("WaMu"). Complaint, ¶ 6. Plaintiff alleges that during the loan origination process, WaMu's agents ("Agents") provided Plaintiff with improper loan disclosures, concealed Plaintiff's true loan terms, fabricated loan documents to inflate Plaintiff's income, and charged excessive closing costs. Id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiff avers that these predatory real estate lending practices deceived her into agreeing to the loan on which she has now defaulted. Id. Plaintiff also claims that Chase, the alleged successor in interest of WaMu, is liable for the alleged wrongdoings of
Id. Further, Plaintiff avers that Chase's failure to modify or refinance Plaintiff's loan terms violates various mortgage laws. Id. at ¶ 3, 20, 32.
Plaintiff is now filing the present civil action based on the alleged events described above. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges twelve causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Declaratory Relief; (3) Demand for Accounting; (4) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Rescission/Cancellation; (6) Quiet Title; (7) Injunctive Relief; (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Negligent Misrepresentation; (10) Cancellation of Trustee Deed Upon Sale Under Civ. Code § 3412; (11) Unjust Enrichment; and (12) Violation of California Civil Code §§ 1920 and 1921. Plaintiff requests: (1) a declaration that the purported power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust has been rendered void and ineffective against the Subject Property; (2) a declaration that the title to the Subject Property be re-conveyed to Plaintiff in the event of a foreclosure; (3) a judgment rescinding the promissory note and setting forth the terms of restitution; (4) a declaration that Plaintiff is the prevailing party; (5) attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred herein; (6) general, exemplary and special damages; (7) punitive damages; and (8) further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
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) Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99 (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, taken as true, to 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 are not to be accepted as true and do not establish a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950.Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will be a context-specific task requiring the court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id.
In evaluating a 12(b)(6) motion, review is "limited to the contents of the complaint." Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 1994). However, exhibits attached to the complaint, as well as matters of public record, may be considered in determining whether dismissal was proper without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. See Parks School of Business, Inc. v. , 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995); Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a court may consider documents "on which the complaint 'necessarily relies' if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the 12(b)(6)
Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). "The Court may treat such a document as 'part of the complaint, and thus may assume that its contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Id.
Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate only when the Court is satisfied that the deficiencies in the complaint could not possibly be cured by amendment. Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 ...