United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND Re: Dkt. No. 17
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
On March 11, 2015, defendant Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee filed a motion to dismiss based on res judicata, arguing the claims asserted in this action are barred by a prior state court judgment in a case involving the same parties. (Dkt. No. 17 ("Mot.").) Plaintiff Arketha Munir opposed the motion. (Dkt. No. 22 ("Oppo.").)
Having carefully considered the papers submitted,  the record in this case, and good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The State Court Action
On September 5, 2014, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the California Superior Court, County of San Francisco, asserting causes of action for: (1) violations of California Civil Code section 2934a; (2) violation of Civil Code section 2924(a)(6); (3) wrongful foreclosure; and (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (RJN, Ex. 17 ("State Court Complaint").) Generally, the complaint centered on allegations of wrongful conduct in connection with events leading up to a mortgage foreclosure, including purportedly inadequate notice of a substitution of trustee in 2008.
Relevant to the instant motion, the State Court Complaint included the following allegations:
"... Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Defendant THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWMBS INC., CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2003-58, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-58 purportedly received all beneficial interest under the original Deed of Trust through an [ sic ] Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust/Mortgage' which was signed by Defendant BANK OF AMERICA N.A. on November 20, 2013 [and] recorded November 27, 2013 as instrument number 20139J79879500001 in the Official Records of San Francisco County California." (State Court Complaint ¶ 11.)
"Plaintiff is informed and believes that when the Defendants securitized their note into the Trust, they [ sic ] did not receive any notice, in direct violation of the Truth in Lending Act." ( Id. ¶ 23.)
"Defendants breached [the covenant of good faith and fair dealing] by breaching TILA (see cause of action number one above) and not informing the Plaintiff that the Loan was sold, thus depriving Plaintiff of the opportunity to negotiate with their [ sic ] creditor." ( Id. ¶ 122.)
"The gravamen of Plaintiffs' [ sic ] complaint is that Defendants are attempting to foreclose without any legal authority or standing to do so, and in violation of State and Federal laws which were specifically enacted to protect consumers such as Plaintiffs [ sic ] from the type of abusive, deceptive, and unfair conduct in which Defendants engaged, which are detailed herein, by failing to follow the procedures prescribed by such laws to foreclose." ( Id. ¶ 118.)
On January 29, 2015 judgment was entered in the state action in favor of the defendants. (RJN, Ex. 19.)
B. The Instant Case
On November 17, 2014, the plaintiff initiated this action in federal court. (Dkt. No. 1.) The First Amended Complaint, filed on February 26, 2015, asserts causes of action for violation of: (1) the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g), and (2) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. ("UCL"). (Dkt. No. 14 ("FAC").) The relevant ...