The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. No. 53]
Presently before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Case. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the court grants the motion and adopts the following order.
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges two causes of action for breach of contract and quiet title in connection with the foreclosure sale of her home. Defendant Quality Loan Servicing Corporation, as Trustee of a Deed of Trust, recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale on December 31, 2009. (SAC ¶ 28.) Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association ("FNMA") acquired the subject property at a Trustee's Sale held on June 3, 2010. (SAC ¶ 35.)
On June 23, 2010, FNMA filed an Unlawful Detainer complaint against Plaintiff under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. (Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. F.) The state court entered judgment in favor of FNMA on August 23, 2011. (Id., Ex. G.) Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint in this court on November 14, 2011. Defendants now move to dismiss the SAC in its entirety.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint is subject to dismissal when the plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. When considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "all allegations of material fact are accepted as true and should be construed in the light most favorable to [the] plaintiff." Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 433, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).
In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009), the Supreme Court explained that a court considering a 12(b)(6) motion should first "identify pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth."
Id. Next, the court should identify the complaint's "well-pleaded factual allegations, . . . assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."
Id.; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) ("In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief" (internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendants argue that the SAC must be dismissed because the challenges it raises to the foreclosure proceedings were necessarily resolved in the state court unlawful detainer proceeding, in which FNMA was required to show that its title to the property was perfected. (Mot. at 4-5). Therefore, Defendants argue, res judicata bars Plaintiff from challenging the foreclosure in this proceeding.
An unlawful detainer proceeding is "summary in character," and "usually has very limited res judicata effect and will not prevent one who is dispossessed from bringing a subsequent action to resolve questions of title or to adjudicate other legal and equitable claims before the parties." Vella v. Hudgins, 20 Cal.3d 251, 255 (1977). Plaintiff cogently contends that she did not have the opportunity to raise title or foreclosure process issues in the unlawful detainer, and thus res judicata does not bar her claims here. (Opp. at 4.) The record, which includes a ...