Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Diane Beall Fka Templin v. Quality Loan Service Corp; Onewest Bank

March 28, 2013


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge


Presently before the court is Defendant OneWest Bank, FSB's Motion to Dismiss. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the court grants the motion and adopts the following order.*fn1

I. Background

In July 2003, Plaintiff executed a Promissory Note and obtained a home loan, secured by a Deed of Trust, for property located at 16377 Arnold Avenue, Lake Elsinore, California 92530. (Amended Complaint ¶ 7; Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice Ex. 1.) An Assignment of the Deed of Trust to OneWest was recorded on March 10, 2010. (RJN Ex. 2.) In May 2010, OneWest's agent recorded a Notice of Default. (RJN Ex. 3.) In July 2010, OneWest substituted Quality Loan Service Corporation as Trustee. (RJN Ex. 4.) Quality subsequently filed a Notice of Trustee's Sale. (RJN Ex. 5.) The sale has not yet occurred.

In September, 2010, Plaintiff filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See Beall v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., No. 10-CV-1900 AJB, 2011 WL 2784594 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2011) (Beall I). Plaintiff alleged twenty causes of action related to the pending foreclosure, . Id. at *1. Ultimately, after extensive motion practice and having allowed Plaintiff to amend her claims twice, the Beall I court dismissed all of Plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice, including claims for violations of the Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, California Business and Professions Code Section 7200, California Civil Code Section 2923.5, and wrongful foreclosure, fraud, quiet title, and declaratory relief. (Beall I, Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 50, 51.)

On April 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed another complaint, this time in Riverside County Superior Court. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint ("FAC"), which OneWest removed to this court.*fn2

OneWest now seeks to dismiss the FAC in its entirety.Aside from introductory comments regarding res judicata, however, Plaintiff's opposition only addresses three causes of action (Truth in Lending Act, Declaratory Relief, and Quiet Title).

II. Legal Standard

A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must "accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). Although a complaint need not include "detailed factual allegations," it must offer "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Conclusory allegations or allegations that are no more than a statement of a legal conclusion "are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Id. at 679. In other words, a pleading that merely offers "labels and conclusions," a "formulaic recitation of the elements," or "naked assertions" will not be sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

"When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief." Id. at 679. Plaintiffs must allege "plausible grounds to infer" that their claims rise "above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief" is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

III. Discussion

A. Res Judicata The principle of res judicata "bars litigation in a subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action." Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The doctrine applies when there is "(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or privity between parties." Id. (internal quotation omitted).

It appears to the court that the majority of Plaintiff's claims, with three exceptions described below, were either raised during prior proceedings in the Southern District or could have been raised then. The bulk of the claims in both the earlier case and this case are premised on Plaintiff's assertion that the Deed of Trust was never properly assigned to OneWest. The body of Plaintiff's Opposition does not address the res judicata issue. The Opposition's preambulatory language does include a numbered list of reasons why Plaintiff believes this case is different from her earlier case. (Opp. at 3-4.) Of these, however the majority are recitations of the FAC's allegations regarding the provenance of the Deed. Plaintiff's additional contention that her prior counsel suffered from a medical condition that compromised his ability to provide adequate representation was raised before, and addressed by, the court in the earlier case. See Beall I, 2011 WL at *1. Thus, it appears to the court that virtually all of the causes of action alleged in the FAC were already addressed and dismissed by the Southern District, with prejudice, or should have been, but were not, raised in the prior action.

B. Remaining Claims The FAC does allege certain causes of action that were not brought in the earlier litigation. The FAC lists a Fifth Cause of Action for "W[rongful] F[oreclosure] - Violation of P[enal] C[ode] [ยง] 115.5" and a Sixteenth Cause of Action for "Violation of 42 USC 1983." The court is unable to determine whether these causes of action could have been raised earlier because neither is supported by any factual allegations. There is no mention of a Penal Code violation anywhere beyond the caption of the complaint. California Penal Code Section 115.5 criminalizes false statements to notaries and the filing of false documents related to single family residences. The court presumes that Plaintiff is attempting to suggest that OneWest's allegedly fraudulent recordations constitute criminal behavior. Absent ...

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.