The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN-PART AND DENYING IN-PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. 4]
Pending before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage's motion to dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiff Yolanda Mendez opposes.
The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN-PART and DENIES IN-PART Wells Fargo's motion [Doc. 4].
On or about November 2, 2010, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage loaned $97,844.00 to Plaintiff Yolanda Mendez to finance her purchase of real property located at 260 Morongo Drive, Imperial, California (the "Property"). (Compl.,¶¶ 6, 26, Ex. A.*fn1 ) The loan is secured by a deed of trust that encumbers the Property. (Id. Ex.A.)
According to the Complaint, the Fair Housing Administration ("FHA") insures the loan. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 11, 15, 26.) Yolanda alleges the FHA required the terms of the loan to conform to various FHA requirements. (Id. ¶ 7.) Specifically, the FHA promulgated "Additional Closing Conditions," dictating that the loan payment would not exceed $725.24. (Id. ¶ 7.) In addition, Yolanda asserts Wells Fargo represented that her initial monthly installments would not exceed $704.95. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 11.)
On or about September 25, 2011, nearly a year after the loan was entered, Wells Fargo notified Yolanda that a review of her escrow account revealed she owed an additional $2,047.17. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Wells Fargo claims the taxes assessed against the Property were higher than Wells Fargo originally estimated. (MTD pp. 3, 7.) Wells Fargo, therefore, asked Yolanda to choose between three new monthly payment plans, all for higher amounts than Yolanda's initial monthly payment plan, in order to cover the outstanding balance. (Compl. ¶ 10.)
On September 6, 2012,Yolanda sued Wells Fargo in the Imperial County Superior Court. Wells Fargo subsequently removed the action to this Court.
The Complaint alleges the FHA Closing Conditions and Wells Fargo's representations induced Yolanda to enter the transaction. (Compl. ¶ 12.) The Complaint further alleges Wells Fargo ignored those conditions and representations by later demanding Yolanda pay higher monthly amounts than initially required. (Id. ¶¶ 9--13.) The Complaint contains claims for: (1) Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Negligence; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (5) Reformation Based on Mistake; (6) Declaratory Relief; (7) Accounting; and (8) Injunctive Relief. (See id.) Wells Fargo now seeks to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
If a cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must dismiss that cause of action. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint's sufficiency. See N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n., 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for lack of a cognizable legal theory or for insufficient facts under a cognizable theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).
As explained by the Supreme Court, "[w]hile 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." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Instead, the allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. However, when determining whether to dismiss a complaint, a Court must consider all material allegations in the complaint, "even if doubtful in fact," as true. Vasquez v. L.A. Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court must also construe the material allegations "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Id.
A. Plaintiff withdrew the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims.
In her opposition, Yolanda agreed to withdraw her breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Wells ...