ORDER VACATING JULY 9, 2012 HEARING DATE AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION TO
DISMISS (Doc. No. 21)
This case arises out of the foreclosure and sale of real property located in Fresno, California. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings suit against Defendants Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of CWALT Alternative Loan Trust 2005-14 ("BNYM"); CWALT, Inc. ("CWALT"); Bank of America, N.A., for itself and as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing LP ("Bank of America"); ReconTrust Company, N.A. ("ReconTrust"); and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p; the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77a et seq.; Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78a; Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1342, 1348 & 1349 (Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses); and Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. (Civil RICO remedies).
On April 2, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Court's Docket, Doc. No. 8. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, but instead lodged a proposed First Amended Complaint reasserting only the cause of action under the FDCPA, along with several novel claims. On May 16, 2012, the Court granted Defendants' motion in part, dismissed the First Cause of Action under the FDCPA, and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint (or direct the Clerk to file the proposed First Amended Complaint) within twenty (20) days. See id. Doc. No. 20.
Plaintiff did not timely file or serve any amended complaint. As permitted by the Court's prior order, Defendants have renewed their motion to dismiss the remaining claims in the operative complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See id., Doc. No. 21. This motion is set for hearing on July 9, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2. Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within the time provided by the Local Rules. The Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). The previously set hearing date of July 9, 2012 hearing date shall be vacated, and, for the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant Defendants' motion.
In February 2005, Plaintiff Jeff Brinkman Crane obtained a loan from Genisys Financial Corp. for the refinance of real property located at 1561 East La Quinta Dr. in Fresno, California. See Compl. ¶ 5. On February 22, 2005, Plaintiff executed a Note and Deed of Trust ("DOT"). Id., Ex. H; RJN, Ex. A. The DOT identifies New Century Title as the trustee, and Defendant MERS as the beneficiary. Id. The DOT specifies that MERS is a "separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns." Id. The DOT also provides that MERS: holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to the right to foreclose and sell the property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.
On March 25, 2008, MERS substituted Defendant ReconTrust as trustee under the DOT. See Compl. ¶ 6, Ex. J. On March 25, 2008, ReconTrust, as agent for the beneficiary, executed a Notice of Default listing MERS as the beneficiary of the loan. See Compl. ¶ 6, Ex.I; RJN, Ex. B. On April 13, 2011, MERS executed a Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust granting beneficial interest to Defendant BNYM. See RJN, Ex. C. On May 10, 2011, ReconTrust recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale, listing a sale date of May 31, 2011. See Compl. ¶ 6, Ex. N; RJN, Ex. D. A Trustee's Deed Upon Sale was recorded on September 28, 2011, showing that the property was sold to the highest bidder on September 13, 2011. See RJN, Ex. E.On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action.
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). The Court must also assume that general allegations embrace the necessary, specific facts to support the claim. Smith v. Pacific Prop. and Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2004); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1994). But, 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). Although they may provide the framework of a complaint, legal conclusions are not accepted as true and "[t]hreadbare recitals of elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009); see also Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, Courts will not assume that plaintiffs "can prove facts which [they have] not alleged, or that the defendants have violated . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged." Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S. Ct. 897, 902 (1983). As the Supreme Court has explained:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965-66 (2007). Thus, 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." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at 1974; see also Weber v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008).
A plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, but courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences." Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). "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.
The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'
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. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the ...