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.

Miller v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

August 8, 2014

ROBERT MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for LONG BEACH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-6, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-6; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS [Re: Docket Item Nos. 12, 16]

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

In this foreclosure action, Plaintiff Robert Miller ("Plaintiff") brings suit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"); Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-6, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-6 ("Deutsche Bank"); Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. ("SPS"); and Does 1-100 ("Does") (collectively "Defendants"). See Compl., Docket Item No. 1.

Per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motions were taken under submission without oral argument. Having fully reviewed the parties' papers, the Court grants Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

On May 4, 2006, Plaintiff obtained a residential loan in the amount of $640, 000.00 ("Loan") secured by a deed of trust ("DOT") encumbering his residence located at 2716 Nicasio Court, San Jose, California 95127 ("Property"). Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 23; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1; Dkt. No. 1-2. The DOT was recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office on May 17, 2006. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. The DOT identifies Aidan West Financial Group ("Aidan") as the lender, beneficiary and trustee. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 23.

Chase is a national association based in New York. Deutsche Bank is a nationally chartered trust bank based in New York. Deutsche Bank is the trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-6 ("LBMLT 2006-6"), which is a mortgage-backed securities trust created under a Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA") under the laws of Delaware and had a Closing Date of July 26, 2006. SPS is a Utah corporation. Id. at ¶¶ 7-9, 28.

Plaintiff alleges that around the time of the origination of the Loan, Aidan attempted to securitize and sell the Loan to another entity. Id . ¶ 24. However, Plaintiff alleges that the Note was never effectively sold, transferred or granted to Washington Mutual Bank ("WaMu") (which was predecessor in interest of Chase), or to Deutsche Bank (trustee of LBMLT 2006-6). Id . ¶¶ 24-25. Although the Loan was included in LBMLT 2006-6's loan schedules, Plaintiff further alleges that the securitization of the Loan failed due to a lack of recordation of the required assignment of the DOT from Aidan to any entity on or before LBMLT 2006-6's Closing Date on July 26, 2006, thus leaving Defendants without any legal or equitable interest in the mortgage.[1] Id . ¶¶ 27-30, 60.

On January 24, 2007, Plaintiff entered into a loan modification agreement with LBMLT 2006-6, which was executed by WaMu as attorney-in-fact for Deutsche Bank. Id . ¶ 36; Dkt. No. 1-3. Payments were to be made to WaMu. Dkt. No.1-3 at 5. On November 6, 2007, Aidan's corporate entity was suspended and no longer licensed to operate in California. Id . ¶ 38. On February 6, 2008, Aidan allegedly assigned the DOT to WaMu ("First Assignment"). Dkt No. 1 ¶ 37. On February 11, 2008, WaMu issued a substitution of trustee ("SOT"), bearing the signature of Deborah Brignac as Vice-President of WaMu, appointing California Reconveyance Company ("CRC") as substitute trustee; the SOT was recorded on May 7, 2008. Id . ¶ 44; Dkt. No. 1-6. Plaintiff disputes the content and authenticity of the SOT, alleges that Deborah Brignac is a "notorious robosigner, " an individual who signs property record documents without any legal or corporate authority, and claims that CRC is not a valid substitute trustee. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 45-50.

On February 11, 2008, a notice of default ("NOD1") was issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company as authorized agent of CRC and recorded in the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office on February 12, 2008. Id . ¶ 42; Dkt No. 1-5. On April 2, 2008, a second notice of default ("NOD2") was issued by CRC in connection with the DOT. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 52; Dkt. No. 1-9. On September 25, 2008, Chase acquired certain assets and liabilities of WaMu through an asset purchase agreement with the FDIC. See Docket Item No. 17 Ex. 5.

Chase, as successor-in-interest to WaMu, issued a second assignment of Deed of Trust ("Second Assignment") on August 27, 2009, transferring the interest under the DOT to Deutsche Bank. Id . ¶ 55; Dkt. No. 1-10. CRC issued two notices of trustee's sale in connection with the DOT on February 24, 2011, and March 12, 2013, respectively ("NOS" and "Second NOS"). Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 57-58. The Second NOS indicates that the unpaid balance on the loan was estimated at $842, 793.37. Dkt. No. 1-11. A sale was scheduled for April 2, 2013, but did not occur. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 58; Dkt. No. 1-12; Dkt. No. 1-13.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed the Complaint underlying this action on July 10, 2013. Plaintiff brings the case in federal court based on federal question and diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2. The Complaint asserts eleven causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; (2) negligence; (3) quiet title; (4) violations of 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq.; (5) violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; (6) violations of California Civil Code § 2934a(a)(A)(1); (7) violations of California Civil Code § 2924.17; (8) fraud; (9) cancellation of instruments; (10) quasi contract; and (11) accounting. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 81-157. Plaintiff disputes the validity of the abovementioned documents. He alleges that the Subject Loan was never effectively assigned and transferred to LBMLT 2006-6, that none of the Defendants are holders in due course of Plaintiff's promissory note, that they cannot establish a pecuniary, legal, and equitable interest in the Property in order to collect payments, and that there is no evidence that Defendants are valid loan servicers or beneficiaries of Plaintiff's mortgage. Plaintiff alleges that Aidan's failure to assign the DOT led to a break in the chain of title of the loan, so that the real parties in interest are unknown and Defendants cannot collect on the loan or declare a default. Id . ¶ 29.

On August 5, 2013, Deutsche Bank and SPS filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. See Docket Item No. 12. On August 6, 2013, Chase also filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. See Docket Item No. 16. Plaintiff filed oppositions to both motions. See Docket Items No. 19, 21. On August 26, 2013, Deutsche Bank and SPS filed a Reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. See ...


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.