The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 44)
On August 23, 2012, Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance LLC, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Deutsche National Bank Trust Company ("Defendants") filed the instant motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Jamey L. Nastrom and Kim Hewton-Nastrom ("Plaintiffs") failed to file a timely opposition to the motion and therefore were not entitled to be heard in opposition at oral argument. Local Rule of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California ("Local Rule") 230(c). Accordingly, the Court deemed the matter suitable for decision based upon the amended complaint, record and briefs on file and vacated the hearing scheduled for September 28, 2012. Local Rule 230(g).
Plaintiffs, originally pro se, filed the instant action on November 22, 2011, challenging foreclosure proceedings on certain real property. Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance LLC, JPMorgan Chase Custody Services, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed a motion to dismiss on February 13, 2012. Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed a motion to dismiss on March 2, 2012. The Court granted the motions to dismiss and provided Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint within sixty (60) days.
On August 6, 2012, Plaintiffs, through counsel, filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC on August 23, 2012. Plaintiffs did not file a timely opposition to the motion.*fn1
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE FAC
Plaintiffs are the owners of property located at 103 C. Street in Empire, California. On July 2, 2007, Plaintiffs refinanced a loan with Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank ("Chase"). Plaintiffs attempted to contact Chase in December 2008, January 2009 and February 2009, and were contacted at the end of March 2009. FAC ¶¶ 19, 29-30.
On April 1, 2009, Plaintiffs contacted Home Owners Assists in Arizona and spoke with Lucia Reyes. Ms. Reyes requested financial information from Plaintiffs over the phone and also requested submission of bank statements, paystubs, profit and loss statements, and tax returns for 2007 and 2008. FAC ¶ 31.
On April 3, 2009, Plaintiffs contacted the Specialty Lending Unit in New York and spoke with Angie Jackson. Ms. Jackson indicated that Plaintiffs fit the guidelines for participation in the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). Ms. Jackson requested that Plaintiffs submit a hardship letter and other financial documents. Plaintiffs submitted these items to Defendants. FAC ¶¶ 32, 33. On May 14, 2009, Ms. Jackson contacted Plaintiffs and requested additional financial information. Plaintiffs submitted this information to Defendants. FAC ¶ 34.
In July 2009, someone representing Chase contacted Plaintiffs and informed them that their case had been transferred to Texas. Plaintiffs were instructed to resubmit all of their documents. FAC ¶ 35.
On July 9, 2009, Defendants claimed that some paperwork was missing and requested that Plaintiffs complete additional documents for loan modification. When Plaintiffs explained their belief that they had already completed the paperwork, some unknown person representing Chase threatened to close Plaintiffs' file. Plaintiffs were verbally insulted and told to get a job. Plaintiffs stayed up until about 4:00 a.m. to complete and fax the paperwork. FAC ¶¶ 36-37.
On July 10, 2009, Plaintiffs contacted the Texas office and spoke to an unknown supervisor, who stated that not all of the papers had been received. Plaintiffs remained on the phone until it was demonstrated that all documents were received. FAC ¶ 38.
On July 28, 2009, Plaintiffs received a letter from Chase stating that the modification was denied as Plaintiffs' income exceeded the maximum for the HAMP lending program. FAC ¶ 40.
During the next 4-5 months, Plaintiffs inquired into the status of their loan modification and were told that pages were missing. Plaintiffs spoke with Shamikka Wells, who threatened to close Plaintiffs' file. After this conversation, Plaintiffs attempted to recontact Ms. Wells, but the calls were never returned. FAC ¶ 41.
On or about September 25, 2009, Plaintiffs learned about and contacted Emergency Mortgage Relief ("EMR") and spoke to Katy Ochoa. Plaintiffs paid $599 to receive this service.
Plaintiffs completed and returned pertinent financial documents to EMR on October 1, 2009. Plaintiffs attempted to receive updates from EMR, but were not able to reach Ms. Ochoa or any other EMR representatives. Plaintiffs received a letter from EMR on January 20, 2010, explaining that cutbacks affected their staffing and Plaintiffs would be contacted within thirty
(30) days for a phone conference with Chase. The conference never occurred. FAC ¶¶ 42-45. In July 2010, Plaintiffs were contacted by EMR representative Rick McGrath. Mr.
McGrath requested updated financial information. On August 6, 2010, Plaintiffs sent the requested information to EMR representative William Papp. Plaintiffs heard nothing from EMR until December 2010, when they contacted Mr. McGrath, who refunded $249.00 of the amount sent to EMR. FAC ¶¶ 47-48.
On October 8, 2010, Plaintiff contacted Rey Serrano at the Chase Homeownership Center in Stockton, California. Serrano told Plaintiffs that they met the criteria for participating in HAMP. Serrano also told Plaintiffs that Chase does not make reductions in principal amounts, but that Chase underwriters would reduce their total monthly payments to an affordable amount. Serrano received required documents from Plaintiffs. For about four months, Plaintiffs received no communications from ...