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.

Mayora v. Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 11, 2015

WILLIE MAYORA, Plaintiff,
v.
FIELDSTONE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST, SERIES 2006-1; HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; HADI R. SEYED-ALI; LAW OFFICES OF LES ZIEVE; 4041 HALLDALE AVE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90062, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HSBC'S MOTION TO DISMISS [15] AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS LAW OFFICES OF LES ZIEVE AND HADI R. SEYED-ALI'S MOTION TO DISMISS [17]

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The instant action is just one of many of Plaintiff's efforts to avoid the consequences of defaulting on his mortgage loan. On March 18, 2015, Defendant HSBC filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of the Motion.[1] (ECF Nos. 15-16.) On March 18, 2015, Defendants Hadi R. Seyed-Ali and Law Offices of Les Zieve ("Attorneys") also filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of the Motion.[2] (ECF Nos. 17-18.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant HSBC's Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS Defendant Attorneys' Motion to Dismiss.[3] (Id. )

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In February 2006, Willie Mayora obtained title to the property 4041 Halldale Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90062 ("Halldale Property"). (Appl. TRO Ex. 2, ECF No. 4.) On February 22, 2006, Mayora secured a loan for $520, 000 with a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust naming Mayora as the "Borrower." (Id. Ex. 3.) On March 10, 2006, the Deed of Trust was recorded against the Halldale Property. (Id.; RJN HSBC Ex. 2)

Mayora later defaulted on the loan, and, in November 2007, a Notice of Default was recorded initiating foreclosure on the Halldale Property. (TRO Ex. 4; RJN HSBC Ex. 3.) In January 2008, the beneficial interest under the Deed of Trust was assigned to HSBC. (RJN HSBC Ex. 4.) On August 9, 2010, the Trustee recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale of the Halldale Property. (RJN HSBC Ex. 10.) On November 30, 2010, HSBC obtained title to the Halldale Property at the Trustee's sale, and a Trustee's Deed Upon Sale was recorded. (TRO Ex. 4; RJN HSBC Ex. 11.) Although Mayora held no interest in the Halldale Property, on December 28, 2010, he attempted to convey his interest to a third party by executing a Warranty Deed. (Mot. Attys 13; RJN Attys Ex. 7.)

On August 7, 2014, Hadi R. Seyed-Ali, Esq., a lawyer at the Law Offices of Les Zieve, obtained an unlawful detainer judgment against Mayora on behalf of HSBC, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (TRO Exs. 1, 9; Mot. Attys at 7.) On November 5, 2014, HSBC obtained a quiet title order against Mayora for the Halldale Property, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, which decreed that HSBC had been the sole true owner since the November 30, 2010, foreclosure sale. (RJN HSBC Ex. 16.)

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff Mayora filed the instant action against Defendants HSBC, the Law Offices of Les Zieve, and Hadi R. Seyed-Ali. (Compl.) Plaintiff also named the Halldale Property as Defendant under several names and descriptions. (Id. ) Plaintiff asserts causes of action for Quiet Title and violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"). (Id. ) Plaintiff alleges that the Deed of Trust and subsequent foreclosure documents contained technical deficiencies, and therefore the foreclosure was invalid. (Id. at 6 ¶¶ 37-38.[4]) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are debt collectors under the FDCPA, and all attempts to foreclose pursuant to the Deed of Trust, including the state court unlawful detainer action, violated the FDCPA. (Id. at 7 ¶ 55, 13 ¶ 107.) Plaintiff also alleges that he is the sole true owner of the Halldale Property, and seeks to quiet title in his name. (Id. at 14 ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiff seeks over seven million dollars in statutory, compensatory, and punitive damages. (Id. at 16 ¶¶ 1-4, 17 ¶¶ 6-8.)

On March 18, 2015, Defendant HSBC filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of the Motion. (ECF No. 15-16.) On March 18, 2015, Defendant Attorneys also filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of the Motion. (ECF No. 17-18.) Plaintiff has not opposed the Motions to Dismiss or Requests for Judicial Notice.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of a cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts pleaded to support an otherwise cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To survive a dismissal motion, a complaint need only satisfy the minimal notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2)-a short and plain statement of the claim. Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). The factual "allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). That is, the complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The determination whether a complaint satisfies the plausibility standard is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679. A court is generally limited to the pleadings and must construe all "factual allegations set forth in the complaint... as true and... in the light most favorable" to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001). But a court need not blindly accept conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). The court may also disregard allegations in a complaint that are contradicted by matters properly subject to judicial notice. Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n., 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, "a liberal interpretation of a pro se... complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Vague and conclusory allegations... are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss." Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). Moreover, "the court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual ...


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.