Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Lee v. Nationstar Mortgage

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 13, 2014

JACK E. LEE, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the court is defendant Nationstar Mortgage's ("Nationstar") motion to dismiss. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. On review of the motion, the documents filed in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 29, 2006, plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan in the amount of $416, 250.00 from GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., which was secured by real property located at 1454 Perdita Lane, Lincoln, CA. See Req. for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Ex. A.[1] The Note was secured by a Deed of Trust ("DOT"), which was recorded in Placer County on January 11, 2007 and secured by the Property. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was listed in the DOT as beneficiary and nominee for the lender and lender's successors and assigns. Id.

On September 6, 2011, the nominee for the beneficiary assigned all beneficial interest under the DOT to Aurora Bank FSB ("Aurora"). RJN, Ex. B. On October 21, 2011, Aurora substituted Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation as the trustee under the DOT. RJN, Ex. C. On September 25, 2012, the beneficial interest was further assigned to the moving defendant, Nationstar. RJN, Ex. D.

When plaintiff stopped paying his mortgage, Quality Loan recorded a Notice of Default on November 1, 2011 in Placer County. RJN, Ex. E. The NOD indicates that plaintiff was $19, 488.58 in arrears as of October 27, 2011. On November 2, 2012, the trustee recorded a Notice of Trustee Sale that set the sale date for November 29, 2012. RJN, Ex. F. No sale date is currently scheduled.

On October 3, 2013, plaintiff commenced suit in the Placer County Superior Court against defendants Nationstar and Quality Loan. See Notice of Removal ("NOR"), Ex. A. Plaintiff brings claims for violations of various state laws and for violation of a single federal statute, the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. Defendant Nationstar was personally served on October 31, 2013. See NOR, Ex. A. This action was removed by Nationstar on December 4, 2013 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.[2]

LEGAL STANDARDS

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n , 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). "Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, a defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the court's ability to grant any relief on the plaintiff's claims, even if the plaintiff's allegations are true.

In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding , 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. United States , 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989).

The court is permitted to consider material properly submitted as part of the complaint, documents not physically attached to the complaint if their authenticity is not contested and the complaint necessarily relies on them, and matters of public record. Lee v. City of Los Angeles , 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). Matters of public record include pleadings and other papers filed with a court. Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors , 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). The court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt , 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981).

DISCUSSION

The court will focus its analysis on plaintiff's sole federal claim brought pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., as the court's jurisdiction is premised upon this claim. Defendant ...


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.