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.

Glenn W. Bever v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp

June 27, 2012

GLENN W. BEVER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORP., CITIMORTGAGE, INC., AND REGISTRATION SERVICES, INC.,
DEFENDANTS.



AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

(Docs. No. 13, 31, and 38)

On June 25, 2012 the court issued an order resolving Defendants' motions to dismiss. This was Document Number 38 in the court's docket. However, this order was issued in error as it included surplus language at the end of the document reflecting background research on related legal issues. As such the court will strike Document Number 38 and issue the present order, which resolves Defendants' motions to dismiss.

INTRODUCTION

On Sept. 20, 2011, Glenn Bever ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. ("Citi"), Mortgage Electronic Registration Services ("MERS") and Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. ("Cal-Western") (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff also filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant Cal-Western from selling Plaintiff's home in Clovis, Cal. (the "Property"). Based upon evidence presented by Plaintiff that Defendants failed to comply with Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5, the temporary restraining order was granted on Oct. 26, 2011.

On Oct. 12, 2011, Defendants Citi and MERS filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).*fn1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Doc. 1, Plaintiff alleges a number of irregularities and violations by Defendants in the foreclosure process. Plaintiff claims violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2605 et seq. Plaintiff also makes claims under California common law of unjust enrichment, fraud, and injurious falsehood, and seeks to quiet title to the Property.

Plaintiff first alleges under the FDCPA that Cal-Western failed, in a "loan payment confirmation" letter dated June 13, 2010,*fn2 to state the name of the creditor to whom the debt was owed and Plaintiff's right to dispute the debt within 30 days, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(2). Doc. 1 ¶¶ 74-75. Plaintiff also includes a verification request he sent to Cal-Western, which cites a letter from Cal-Western dated June 15, 2011, including the statement that "This letter is an attempt to collect a debt." Id. at 27. Plaintiff also alleges that Cal-Western failed to verify the debt as requested by Plaintiff and failed to cease collection after the request, in contravention of § 1692g(b). Id. ¶¶ 79-81. Plaintiff further claims -- apparently in connection to the Notice of Default -- that Cal-Western violated §§ 1692e and 1692f because it did not actually possess the promissory note for the Deed and therefore deceptively and unfairly sought collection of the debt. Id. ¶¶ 82-85. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. Id. ¶ 86.

Plaintiff alleges under RESPA that Citi responded to a Qualified Written Request in an untimely and inadequate manner, thus violating 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e). Id. ¶¶ 88-89.

Under a theory of unjust enrichment, Plaintiff seems to allege that federal bailout dollars or other means have been used to repay Plaintiff's loan, and that collection of Plaintiff's debt by Defendants would therefore unjustly enrich them. Id. ¶¶ 92-96.

Plaintiff further alleges that MERS acted to conceal its true identity and purpose, thereby inducing Plaintiff into a fraudulent loan. Id. ¶ 98. Plaintiff also appears to challenge MERS' authority to make an assignment to Citi and claims that MERS knew the assignment would wrongly divest Plaintiff of title to the Property. Id. ¶¶ 99-100.

LEGAL STANDARD

A claim may be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) if the claim states no cognizable legal theory or alleges insufficient facts to support a valid allegation. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

For purposes of the 12(b)(6) motion, all well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true and are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2008). A well-pleaded allegation contains sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (U.S. 2007). Allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences ...


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.