United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
LEONARD K. TYSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
BANK OF AMERICA N.A., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS [RE: ECF 58]
LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge
Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) and The Bank of
New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWHEQ
Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-C
(“BNYM”) (collectively “Defendants”)
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The Court, having considered the briefing
submitted by the parties and the oral argument presented at
the hearing on June 30, 2016, GRANTS Defendants’
following information is taken from Plaintiffs’
Complaint and Defendants’ request for judicial notice
(“RJN”). On July 11, 2005, Plaintiffs obtained two
mortgage loans, in the amounts of $3, 000, 000 and $500, 000,
to refinance their principal place of residence located at
13501 Paseo Del Roble Drive, Los Altos, California 94022
(“Property”). Compl. ¶ 1. America’s
Wholesale Lender (“AWL”), a subsidiary of
Countrywide Home Loans, was the original lender of the two
loans. Id. at ¶ 2.
January 31, 2008, Plaintiffs, through counsel, sent a letter
to AWL accusing it of violating the Federal Truth in Lending
Act (“TILA”) and demanding rescission of their
loans. Id. at ¶ 5; see also Exh. A to
Compl., ECF 1-1. According to Plaintiffs, AWL provided them
with only four copies of a Notice of Right to Cancel instead
of the eight copies required by TILA. Exh. A. to Compl. at
1-2, ECF 1-1. Plaintiffs also allege that the four copies of
the Notice of Right to Cancel were defective because they did
not indicate when the three-day cancellation began or the
final date to cancel the loans. Id. at 2. On
February 20, 2008, Countrywide Home Loans
(“Countrywide”) denied Plaintiffs’ request
to rescind their loans. Exh. B to Compl at 1, ECF 1-1. In its
response to Plaintiffs, Countrywide enclosed a form that was
signed, dated, and initialed by Plaintiffs acknowledging
receipt of the required notices and disclosures under TILA.
Id. Countrywide also indicated that if Plaintiffs
had additional information, they would consider reopening
Plaintiffs’ claim to rescind the mortgage. Id.
August 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
California. Exh. C to RJN, ECF 59-3. Plaintiffs listed both
of their loans and both creditors of the loans on their
Schedule D. Id. at 20. Plaintiffs listed their
primary loan as due and owing $3, 216, 938.47 and their
second loan as due and owing $533, 776.58. Id.
Plaintiffs did not indicate that either loan was contingent
or unliquidated. Id. Plaintiffs bankruptcy petition
and schedules did not list claims for TILA rescission,
declaratory relief, quiet title or mention any violation of
TILA or of their right to rescind the loans. Exh. C to RJN,
ECF 59-3. On November 6, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted
Plaintiffs a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Exh. D to
RJN, ECF 59-4.
time after February 20, 2008, BANA acquired Countrywide.
Compl. ¶¶ 2, 6. Plaintiffs allege that BANA is the
current beneficial owner and Nationstar is the servicer of
the $3, 000, 000 loan. Id. Plaintiffs believe that
BANA sold or assigned the $500, 000 loan to BNYM after
learning that Plaintiffs had attempted to rescind that loan.
Id. Plaintiffs allege that BNYM is the current
beneficial owner and Real Time Resolutions is the servicer of
the $500, 000 loan. Id. On April 2, 2015, Plaintiffs
brought this action seeking to rescind the two loans pursuant
to TILA, declaratory relief, and quiet title. Compl., ECF
12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed -
but early enough not to delay trial - a party may move for
judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).
“A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when,
taking all allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins.
Co., 132 F.3d 526, 528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing
McGann v. Ernst & Young, 102 F.3d 390, 392 (9th
Cir. 1996)). “If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or
12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not
excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for
summary judgment under Rule 56.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). A
court, however, may “consider certain
materials-documents attached to the complaint, documents
incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of
judicial notice-without converting the motion to dismiss into
a motion for summary judgment.” United States v.
Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
Requests for Judicial Notice
request judicial notice of four exhibits: (1) Deed of Trust
recorded on July 27, 2005 in the Official Records of Santa
Clara County as Document Number 18495803; (2) Deed of Trust
and Assignment of Rents recorded on July 27, 2005 in the
Official Records of Santa Clara County as Document Number
18495804; (3) Voluntary Petition filed on August 18, 2010 in
the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of
California, Case Number 10-58562; (4) Discharge of Debtor
filed on November 16, 2010 in the United States Bankruptcy
Court, Northern District of California, Case Number 10-58562.
RJN 2, ECF 59. Plaintiffs do not object to Defendants’
request for judicial notice.
Court finds that judicial notice is appropriate as to the
existence of all four exhibits. Exhibits 1 and 2 are public
records that are recorded in the Santa Clara County
Recorder’s Office. Exhibits 3 and 4 are court documents
that are matters of public record. See Reyn’s Pasta
Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 (9th
Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
request for judicial notice as to all four exhibits.