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.

Andres C. Meza v. Citimortgage

April 25, 2012

ANDRES C. MEZA,
PLAINTIFFS ,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC. CR TITLE SERVICES, INC., AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.



ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, AND ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO THE KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

(Doc. No. 6)

This case was removed by Defendants from the Kings County Superior Court on March 8, 2012, on the basis of Federal Question Jurisdiction.

Defendants have noticed for hearing and decision a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The matter was scheduled for a hearing to be held on April 30, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), Plaintiff was required to file either an opposition or a notice of non-opposition no later than April 16, 2012. Plaintiff failed to do so. Due to Plaintiffs' failure to file a timely opposition or notice of non-opposition, he is in violation of the Local Rules. Plaintiff is not entitled to be heard at oral argument in opposition to the motion. See Local Rule 230(c).

The Court has reviewed Defendants' motion and the applicable law, and has determined that the motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(h). The Court will vacate the April 30, 2012, hearing date and instead issue the following order, which resolves Defendants' motion and remands this matter to state court.

GENERAL BACKGROUND *fn1

On June 23, 2006, Plaintiff executed a deed of trust. See RJN Ex. 1. Plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan of approximately $202,000 for real property located in Lemoore, California. See id.

On February 11, 2010, the deed of trust was assigned to Citimortgage. See RJN Ex. 2. On October 12, 2011, CR Title Services recorded a Notice of Default in the Kings County Recorder's Office. See RJN Ex. 3. The amount of default was approximately $12,000. See id.

On January 18, 2012, a Notice of Trustee's Sale was recorded in the Kings County Recorder's Office. See RJN Ex. 4. The Trustee's sale was scheduled to occur on February 7, 2012. See id.

On February 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action in the Kings County Superior Court. See Doc. No. 1-1. Plaintiff alleges violations for 12 U.S.C. § 2601, 12 C.F.R. § 226, California Business & Professions Code § 17200, California Civil Code § 1572, wrongful foreclosure, and fraud. See id.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) , a claim may be dismissed because of the plaintiff's "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). In reviewing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Marceau v. Blackfeet Hous. Auth., 540 F.3d 916, 919 (9th Cir. 2008); Vignolo v. Miller, 120 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the Court is not required "to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2008); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). To "avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. In deciding whether to dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court is generally limited to reviewing only the complaint, but it may take judicial notice of public records outside the pleadings, review materials which are properly submitted as part of the complaint, and review documents that are incorporated by reference in the Complaint if no party questions their authenticity. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). If a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, leave to amend need not be granted where amendment would be futile. Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002).

DEFENDANT'S MOTION

1. Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") - 12 U.S.C. ...


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.