ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Now before the court is Defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. and 20 Citibank, N.A.'s (collectively "Defendants") motion to dismiss 21 Plaintiff Gina Sanguinetti's ("Plaintiff") First Amended Complaint. 22 ECF Nos. 14-1 ("MTD"), 12 ("FAC"). The motion is fully briefed, 23 ECF Nos. 23 ("Opp'n"), 24 ("Reply"), and appropriate for decision 24 without oral argument, Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons explained 25 below the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff's 26 FAC with leave to amend. 27
The undisputed fact at the center of this dispute is simple: 3 Plaintiff has a second mortgage loan provided and serviced by 4 Defendants, and Plaintiff defaulted on said loan. FAC ¶ 2. 5 Plaintiff's FAC, however, is no model of clarity. According to 6 Plaintiff: 7
[Defendants] provided Plaintiff with a mortgage loan and services such loan and in 2 so doing have (1) provided a loan without providing and disclosing to Plaintiff, as 8 required under law, the required Truth in Lending Disclosures; (2) failed to provide to Plaintiff, as required under law, the 11 required disclosure of the Annual Percentage Rate ("APR") to be charged for the loan; (3) failed to provide to Plaintiff, as required under law, a detailed Good Faith Estimate detailing all relevant fees to be charged to 12 Plaintiff; (4) failed to provide to Plaintiff, as required under law, a signed original of the Promissory Note relevant to [Plaintiff's] loan; (5) charged an excessive 14 and undisclosed amount in interest charges in violation of law; (6) illegally and 15 unfairly insisted that, prior to making any determination as to [Plaintiff's] right to a 16 loan modification, that she must first pay [Defendants'] inflated "reinstatement" 17 fees[,] which include exorbitant attorneys['] fees and costs[,] as well as 18 excessive[,] undisclosed "miscellaneous" fees; and (7) have, even after payment of all such excessive fees and charges, then denied the loan modification request and 20 unlawfully and unfairly attempted to foreclose on [Plaintiff's] property.
FAC ¶ 7. Plaintiff fully explains none of these alleged facts, 24 going on to claim that Defendants knowingly misrepresented the 25 nature and terms of the loans, that the loans were a good financial 26 decision for Plaintiff, the loans' modification process, and 27
Plaintiff's home's value. Id. ¶ 17. 28
Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly or negligently defrauded her, "causing her to agree to enter a loan 2 which Defendants knew Plaintiff [was] unlikely to ever be able to 3 pay off. Because of Plaintiff['s] desperation and desire to stay 4 in her Home, she justifiably relied on Defendants' 5 misrepresentations about the terms of the loans, her ability to 6 afford the loans and the value of their home." Id. 7
In this context, Plaintiff claims that Defendants had a duty 8 to investigate the reasonableness of her income and confirm that 9 she had the ability to repay the loan, but that they did not do so when they qualified her for the loan based on the "overstated 10 income supply by Defendants." Id. ¶ 18. Essentially, Plaintiff is 12 alleging that Defendants falsified her income themselves, because she never actually supplied it. See id. ¶¶ 18-19. 14
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants hid the fact that the 15 initial interest-only loan payments would convert to a fully 16 amortized payment and then failed to qualify Plaintiff for the 17 fully indexed, fully amortized amount despite an alleged agreement 18 to do so. Id. ¶ 21. 19
Finally, based on Defendant's purported failure to have 20 offered Plaintiff the correct loan or to convert Plaintiff's loan 21 to the proper type, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached a 22 duty to "competently and reasonably work with Plaintiff" to come to 23 a modification agreement. Id. 24
From these facts, Plaintiff asserts four causes of action 25 against Defendants: (1) quiet title, (2) fraud or negligent 26 misrepresentation, (3) negligence, and (4) unfair, unlawful, and 27 fraudulent business practices under California's Unfair Competition 28 Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
On January 24, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's 2 FAC. A hearing on the MTD was set for March 1, 2013. On February 3 15, 2013, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Opposition because 4 Plaintiff had not responded to the MTD by the February 7 deadline. 5 ECF No. 19. Plaintiff's counsel claimed he had not received the 6 motion and asked the Court for a continuance on February 15, 2013. 7 ECF No. 20.*fn1 The Court granted the continuance and held that the 8 matter would be submitted on the papers, with no ...