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.

Sabacky v. Onewest Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 27, 2015

DALE SABACKY, Plaintiff,
v.
ONEWEST BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

KENLY KIYA KATO, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Dale Sabacky, proceeding pro se, has filed a federal Complaint challenging an unlawful detainer action against him that is currently pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Complaint contains 11 causes of action, only one of which, under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 ("section 1983"), arises under federal law. As discussed below, Plaintiff's section 1983 claim is deficient. Thus, the Court dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend.[1]

II.

BACKGROUND

A. Complaint

On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges Defendant OneWest Bank, N.A. ("OneWest") illegally procured the title to his house in a foreclosure sale, then commenced a meritless unlawful detainer action against him in Los Angeles County Superior Court, which is currently pending. Id. at 2, 54. Plaintiff alleges 11 causes of action: (1) "for writ of mandate for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction"; (2) "for fraud by intentional violation of" various California civil code provisions; (3) "for negligence"; (4) "for declaratory relief/judgment"; (5) "for equitable rescission of illegal foreclosure"; (6) "for fraud by wrongful foreclosure"; (7) "for slander of title"; (8) "for breach of contract"; (9) "for promissory estoppel to enforce the terms of a written agreement not to foreclose"; (10) "to quiet title"; and (11) for "discrimination and violation of due process and equal protection of the laws under the 5th and 14th Amendment[s] to the United States Constitution and denial of equal protection of the law by all Defendants both public and private, California state officials and the judicial branch, and Does 1-100, inclusively."[2] Id. at 10-21. With regard to the last cause of action, which arises under section 1983, Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights are being violated because, in the unlawful detainer action, he may not "raise the defense of illegality in the procurement of title." Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 21-22.

In addition to OneWest, Plaintiff sues the following Defendants: the State of California; the Superior Court of the State of California; Jerry Brown, "as Governor of the State of California"; Kamala Harris, "as Attorney General of the State of California"; Superior Court Judge David S. Wesley; the Los Angeles County Sheriff, "as an arm of the Superior Court"; First Federal Bank of California; MTC Financial Inc.; T.D. Service Company; and various unknown "Doe" defendants. Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges "[a]ll defendants are in some way... agents and operatives of each other, " and thus they "share responsibility for all acts complained of herein." Id. at 6.

In terms of relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages against all Defendants. Id. at 26. Plaintiff also seeks, specifically under section 1983, an order (1) "declaring" California's "current unlawful detainer statutes and case law" violate federal law; (2) enjoining the "enforcement" of California's unlawful detainer laws; and (3) dismissing the current unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff. Id. at 26-27.

B. Denial of Temporary Restraining Order

In the Complaint, Plaintiff sought a writ of mandate for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") to enjoin "the defendant governmental officials from the continued processing of this plaintiff's [unlawful detainer] action..., and further to enjoin the foreclosing defendants from any resale, re-conveyance or hypothecation of the subject premises pendent[e] lite." Id. at 10. On January 26, 2015, the Court, Judge Dean D. Pregerson, denied the request for a TRO, finding Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. ECF No. 5 at 3. In denying the TRO, the Court noted Plaintiff had a history of improperly removing his unlawful detainer action to this Court, and has been prohibited from doing so again without prior leave of the Court, in order to prevent "further abus[e]" of the federal court system to "obstruct" state proceedings.[3] Id. at 2 n.1 (discussing OneWest Bank FSB v. Sabacky, Case No. 2:14-cv-9308-DDP-FFM, ECF No. 8 (C.D. Cal. 2014)); see also OneWest Bank, FSB v. Sabacky, Case No. 2:14-cv-2445-FMO-AJW, ECF No. 9 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (remanding action to state court for lack of federal question jurisdiction over "what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action").[4]

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. "A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)." Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. , 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). "Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief." Id. (citation omitted).

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim "where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory." Zamani v. Carnes , 491 F.3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In considering whether a complaint states a claim, "a court must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, a court need not accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig. , 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While a complaint may not be dismissed simply because its factual allegations seem "unlikely, " it may be dismissed if the allegations "rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). "[T]o be entitled to the presumption of truth, ...


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.