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.

Adams v. PNC Bank, N.A.

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

December 29, 2014

MATTHEW ADAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
PNC BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants

For Matthew Adams, Plaintiff: Mitch Obiora Onu, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Onu Law Firm, Redwood City, CA.

For PNC Bank, N.A., Defendant: Brian H. Gunn, Wolfe & Wyman LLP, Walnut Creek, CA.

For S.B.S. Trust Deed Network, a corporation, CNF Realty Partners LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants: Andrew Ditlevsen, Terra Law LLP, San Jose, CA; Mark W. Good, Terra Law LLOP, San Jose, CA.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND REMAND (Re: Docket Nos. 4, 7, 17)

PAUL S. GREWAL, United States Magistrate Judge.

Over a year ago, Plaintiff Matthew Adams sought a modification of a loan he took out against his property at 4394 Planet Circle, Union City, CA 94587. Believing he was misled into stopping payments on the loan in order to qualify, Adams filed suit against Defendants PNC Bank, N.A., S.B.S. Trust Deed Network and CNF Realty Partners LLC, alleging harm from the notice of default, notice of trustee's sale and the sale itself that followed. Because Adams's allegations fail to pass muster under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Because Adams's proposed Second Amended Complaint is substantially unchanged, Adams's motion for leave to amend and remand is DENIED.

I.

Adams took out a primary loan on his property from Bank of America, N.A. Bank of America is not a party to this suit. He subsequently took out a second loan with National City Bank, which was later acquired by Defendant PNC Bank.[1] Adams was thereafter successful in acquiring a loan modification from Bank of America on his primary loan.[2] Several years later, PNC assigned Adams's loan to Defendant CNF, who later substituted Defendant S.B.S as trustee.[3]

On November 7, 2013, a Notice of Default was recorded against Adams's property.[4] Adams alleges that about a month earlier, he had inquired into applying for a loan modification on his second loan.[5] Adams further contends that Defendants advised him against making any additional payments on his outstanding second balance of $31, 325.50 until his loan modification was finalized.[6] Ultimately, a Notice of Trustee's Sale was recorded against Adams's property in February 2014, which was followed shortly thereafter by a Trustee's Sale.[7]

This suit followed. Adams originally filed the suit in Santa Clara Superior Court, but after Adams added federal claims, Defendants removed to this court. As currently pleaded, Adams alleges six causes of action against all Defendants: (1) promissory estoppel, (2) negligence, (3) breach of contract, (4) rescission in equity, (5) wrongful foreclosure and (6) unfair business practices.

II.

This court has subject matter jurisdiction over Adams's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1331 and 1367. The parties further consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

As a preliminary matter, SBS and CNF request judicial notice of several documents, including various deeds of trust and a notice of trustee's sale, as well as copies of pleadings in this case and copies of U.S. Department of Treasury webpages.[8] The court may take judicial notice of a " fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known" or " can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." [9] Because these documents are in the public record and are not subject to reasonable dispute, the court takes judicial notice of them.

At this stage of the case, the court must accept all material allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.[10] The court's review is limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice.[11] However, the court need not accept as ...


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.