The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [Docket No. 3]
This case comes before the Court on Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of New York Mellon's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants' motion.
Plaintiffs Thanh Tran and Xuyen Lien allege they are the owners of real property located at 4248 Olive Avenue in La Mesa, California. On or about July 18, 2005, Plaintiffs obtained two loans from America's Wholesale Lender ("AWL") to finance the property. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, AWL inflated Plaintiffs' income so that Plaintiffs would qualify for the loan. Based on AWL's representations, Plaintiffs believed they could afford the loan, but they could not. As a result, Plaintiffs attempted to refinance or modify the loan, but those attempts were unsuccessful.
On May 20, 2011, Recontrust Company filed a Notice of Default on Plaintiffs' property. On August 23, 2011, Recontrust filed a Notice of Trustee's Sale of the property, which scheduled a sale for November 14, 2011.
Plaintiffs filed the present case in San Diego Superior Court on October 27, 2011. Their Complaint alleges the following claims for relief: (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 California Code of Civil Procedure § 3412, (11) unjust enrichment and (12) violation of California Civil Code §§ 1920 and 1921. Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of New York Mellon removed the case to this Court on November 30, 2011. The present motion followed.
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiffs agree to dismiss of some of their claims.*fn1
The remaining claims are discussed below.
In two recent opinions, the Supreme Court established a more stringent standard of review for 12(b)(6) motions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 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 ...