The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward J. Davila United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE [Re: Docket No. 6, 8]
Presently before the court in this foreclosure-related action is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A.'s ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Maria A. Casas' ("Plaintiff") Complaint. 21 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has not filed an opposition to this motion. This court has 22 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Having carefully reviewed the complaint and 23 Defendant's arguments, the court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Strike is 24 DENIED as moot. 25
The court recounts the relevant facts mainly from judicially-noticeable documents. On or 27 about November 10, 2005, Plaintiff obtained a loan for $450,000 from World Savings Bank, FSB 28 for the purchase of real property located at 2002 Loch Ness Way, San Jose, California 95121 (the 2 "Property"). See Req. for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Dkt. No. 7, Exs. A and B.*fn1 World Savings 3 Bank was renamed Wachovia Mortgage, FSB on December 31, 2007. RJN, Ex. D. On November 4 1, 2009, Wachovia Mortgage, FSB was converted to a national bank named Wells Fargo Bank 5 Southwest, N.A., and merged with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. RJN, Ex. E. 6 A notice of default was recorded against the Property on June 3, 2011. RJN, Ex. F. Shortly thereafter, a notice of sale was recorded. RJN, Ex. G. The Property was sold at non-8 judicial foreclosure to a third party on March 7, 2012. RJN, Ex. H. That same day, Plaintiff filed 9 suit in Santa Clara County superior court asserting the following ten claims:
(1) Fraudulent Misrepresentation (2) Fraudulent Inducement (3) Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") 13 (4) Predatory Lending Practices in Violation of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection 14 Act ("HOEPA"), the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), and California Business and 15 Professions Code Section 17200 16 (5) Breach of Contract 17 (6) Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") 18 (7) Quiet Title 19 (8) Declaratory Relief 20 (9) Injunctive Relief 21 (10) Cease and Desist Defendant removed the action to this district on April 6, 2012. Defendant now moves to dismiss 23 Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, and, in the alternative, moves to strike portions of Plaintiff's 24 complaint. 25
2 complaint with sufficient specificity to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and 3 the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 4 (internal quotations omitted). A complaint which falls short of the Rule 8(a) standard may be 5 dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead each claim in the Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is "proper only 7 where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a 8 cognizable legal theory." Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 606 F.3d 658, 664 (9th 9 Cir. 2010) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). In considering whether 10 the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it "must contain sufficient factual matter, 13 accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 14 If a district court considers evidence outside the pleadings in a motion to dismiss, it must 16 normally convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, and must 17 give the nonmoving party an opportunity to respond. SeeUnited States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 18 907 (9th Cir. 2003). A court may, however, consider documents attached to the complaint, 19 documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice without 20 converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 908. The court may 21 treat such a document as part of the complaint, and may assume that its contents are true for 22 purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). SeeKnievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 23 (9th Cir. 2005). 24
26 failed to state a claim. Primarily, Plaintiff has not met the pleading standard required by Federal 27 U.S. at 570).
Having reviewed Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety, the court concludes that Plaintiff has Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because she has failed to provide sufficient factual information or 28 present information in a meaningful way. While the court must afford flexibility to a pro se 2 complainant's pleadings, the complaint must still provide fair notice of the claims and must allege 3 enough facts to state the elements of each claim plainly and succinctly. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); 4
Jones v. Comty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). A complaint will not suffice if 5 it only provides "naked assertions" devoid of "further factual enhancements." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 6 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). Plaintiff here has failed to include sufficient facts to 7 support any of her causes of action. This ground alone will support a grant of Defendant's motion 8 to dismiss. However, because the court dismisses some claims with leave to amend, and some 9 claims without leave, the court will address each of Plaintiff's causes of action.
("OTS"), 12 C.F.R. § 560, preempt Plaintiff's state law causes of
action. "[T]he laws of the United
States.shall be the supreme law of the land.any Thing in the
Constitution or laws of any state to 15 the contrary notwithstanding."
U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Under the Supremacy Clause, a federal 16
law will preempt a state law "when federal regulation in a particular
field is so pervasive as to 17 make reasonable the inference that
Congress left no room for the States to supplement it." Bank of 18
HOLA was enacted "to charter savings associations under federal law,
at a time when
record numbers of home loans were in default and a staggering
number of state-chartered savings 21 associations were insolvent."
Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp., 514 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2008).
One of HOLA's central purposes was to restore public confidence in the banking system by 23 consolidating the regulation of savings and loan associations with the federal government. Id. To 24 achieve this purpose, Congress authorized the OTS to promulgate regulations governing federal 25 savings associations. 12 U.S.C. § 1464; Silvas, 514 F.3d at ...