United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief District Judge
Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"), as acquirer of certain assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, and California Reconveyance Company ("CRC") have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
On or about September 7, 2007, Plaintiff Marie Habchi ("Plaintiff") obtained a loan from Washington Mutual Bank ("WaMu") in the amount of $1, 466, 500.00. The loan was secured by a Deed of Trust (Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Ex. 1) on the property located at 17577 Rancho Del Rio, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 ("Property). The Deed of Trust identifies Washington Mutual as the lender and beneficiary and CRC as the trustee.
In September 2008, pursuant to a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (RJN, Ex. 2.), Chase acquired certain assets and liabilities of WaMu from the FDIC acting as receiver for WaMu, including WaMu's interest in Plaintiff's loan.
Notices of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust were recorded by CRC on March 15, 2010 and April 13, 2010. (Ex. B to FAC) Notices of Trustee's Sale were recorded by CRC on July 16, 2010, December 20, 2010, February 11, 2013, and July 30, 2013. (RJN, Exs. 4-7.)
On August 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Superior Court of California. On September 12, 2013, Defendants removed the action.
In an order filed on December 27, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. However, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On January 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed her FAC.
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) should be granted only where a plaintiff's complaint lacks a "cognizable legal theory" or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept. , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the allegations of material fact in plaintiff's complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington , 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "A plaintiff's obligation to prove the grounds' of his entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id . "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] that the pleader is entitled to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 565 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief will survive a motion to dismiss. Id.
Defendants move to dismiss the FAC in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The Court agrees that dismissal is warranted.
The FAC asserts the identical claims as the original complaint: (1) wrongful foreclosure/violation of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights ("CHBR"); (2) negligence; (3) unlawful and unfair acts and practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.); (4) violation of Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1602, et seq.; (5) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5; and (6) declaratory relief. Although the FAC is longer than the original complaint, Plaintiff has not added substantive allegations that remedy the defects identified in the Court's prior order [Doc. No. 9]. For the most part, the new allegations consist of conclusory claims regarding how Defendants have breached their duties and violated laws. Because Plaintiff has not remedied the deficiencies pointed out by the Court, Plaintiff's claims fail to state a claim for the same reasons as set forth in the Court's prior order.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants' motion. Therefore, the Court has no basis to conclude that Plaintiff can allege additional facts that can salvage her claims. Accordingly, the ...