United States District Court, S.D. California
MARIA E. SILLER, et al., Plaintiffs,
IRS AGENT STEPHAN ALOYA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT; [DKT. NO. 26.] (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT; [DKT. NOS. 11, 14, 16.] (3) VACATING HEARING
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Maria E. Siller and Clayton Siller ("Plaintiffs") filed this civil action arising from their mortgage agreement. Before the Court are motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' original Complaint by Defendants David Parker, 21st Mortgage Corporation, Ocwen Servicing, LLC, and Litton Loan Servicing LLC ("Defendants"). (Dkt. Nos. 11, 14, 16.) The Parties have fully briefed the motions. (Dkt. Nos. 28, 30, 32, 38-40.)
Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Dkt. No. 26), which Defendants have opposed (Dkt. Nos. 35-37). The Court finds the matter suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set out below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' original Complaint.
In early 2006, Plaintiffs entered into a mortgage refinancing agreement with lender Option One Mortgage Corporation through mortgage broker MD Mortgage. (Dkt. No. 26 at 13-14, 19.) Soon afterward, Plaintiffs tried to cancel the agreement because they received only about a $15, 000 payment, rather than the $27, 000 they had allegedly agreed to and were expecting. ( Id. at 14, 19.)
In June 2006, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in California state court against MD Mortgage, Option One, and other defendants arising from the mortgage agreement and alleging breach of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ("RESPA"), breach of contract, fraud/misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty/conversion, and quiet title. (Dkt. No. 26 at 3; Dkt. No. 36 at 6.) Plaintiffs, through counsel, filed a first amended complaint in March 2007 (Dkt. No. 36 at 36), and a second amended complaint in December 2007 (Dkt. No. 36 at 7, 87). In October 2008, the state trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Option One. (Dkt. No. 36 at 170, 178.) On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling on all of Plaintiffs' claims against Option One except one claim concerning California Financial Code section 50505. (Dkt. No. 36 at 175, 205, 209; see also Dkt. No. 26 at 4.) In April 2011, the trial court granted Option One's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the sole remaining claim, and entered judgment. (Dkt. No. 36 at 212-29.)
Over three years later, on August 1, 2014, Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed this action against IRS Agent Stephan Aloya, several attorneys, a paralegal, and various successors-in-interest to their mortgage. (Dkt. No. 1.) The original Complaint contains less than two pages of allegations and does not allege any causes of action, but includes over one hundred pages of exhibits. ( Id. )
In September 2014, some of the defendants - David Parker (Option One's attorney in the underlying state court action), 21st Mortgage Corporation, Ocwen Servicing, LLC, and Litton Loan Servicing LLC ("Defendants") - filed three separate motions to dismiss or strike Plaintiffs' Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 14, 16.) Plaintiffs opposed, (Dkt. Nos. 28, 30, 32), and Defendants replied (Dkt. Nos. 38-40).
On November 20, 2014, while the motions to dismiss or strike the original Complaint were pending, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 26.) Plaintiffs' motion includes a copy of a proposed amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 26 at 9-25.) The proposed amended complaint adds a few defendants and alleges seven causes of action: (1) breach of TILA; (2) violations of RESPA; (3) breach of contract; (4) fraud/misrepresentation; (5) breach of fiduciary duty - conversion; (6) quiet title; and (7) negligence.
In December 2014, Defendants filed three oppositions to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 35-37.) Plaintiffs did not reply.
A. Legal Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil ...