Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Amador v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 17, 2017

Daniel Amador, Plaintiff,
Quicken Loans, Inc.; Bank of America N.A.; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Corelogic, Inc.; DVP, LP Defendants.


          Honorable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District Judge.

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Corelogic, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Quicken Loans, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, and Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC's Motion to Dismiss. (Docs. 21, 23, 26.) Plaintiff has not filed a response to any of these pending motions.

         The Court held Oral Argument on Defendants' motions on Friday, May 5, 2017. Plaintiff did not appear. Counsel for Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”) stated to the Court that she tried, unsuccessfully, to contact Plaintiff via email and phone prior to the hearing. Similarly, Counsel for Defendants Quicken Loans, Inc. (“Quicken”) and Corelogic, Inc. (“Corelogic”) stated that they tried, unsuccessfully, to contact Plaintiff after filing their respective Motions to Dismiss.

         The Court notes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. The Court further notes that throughout this litigation, the Court has been sensitive to Plaintiff's pro se status and has made numerous accommodations for him. In the instant matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to respond to Defendants' motions, and had adequate notice of the Oral Argument hearing. Therefore, the Court issues the following rulings, notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to respond and appear.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff obtained a loan from Quicken in 2009. (Doc. 3 at ¶14.) The loan was secured by a promissory note (in the amount of $194, 749.00 in principal plus interest at a rate of 4.875%), and a deed of trust to the subject property. (Id. at ¶14; 64.)

         In 2012, Quicken assigned the deed of trust to Bank of America, who then assigned it to Nationstar in 2013. (Id. at ¶¶16, 19; 52-53, 57.) The assignments of the deed of trust were recorded. (Id.) Corelogic's document preparation services were allegedly used for both assignments. (Id. at ¶¶16, 19.)

         At some point, Plaintiff defaulted on his loan, resulting in the issuance of a notice of default and notice of trustee's sale. (Id. at ¶¶24-25). DVP, LP purchased the property at a trustee's sale and currently appears on the title as the property owner. (Id. at ¶¶26-27.)

         In September 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit alleging breach of contract, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, wrongful foreclosure, fraud in the inducement, cancellation and expungement of instruments, slander of title, quiet title, rescission, and declaratory relief. (Doc. 3.)

         Prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff brought similar proceedings in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. (Doc. 27, Exhibits 7-20.) Nationstar was a named Defendant in both actions, and prevailed against Plaintiff in both actions. (Doc. 27, Exhibits 15, 19-20.)


         A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). When deciding a Motion to Dismiss, all allegations of material fact in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. W. Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Notably, the requirement that a court accept as true all of the allegations is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

         A court may dismiss a claim either because it lacks “a cognizable legal theory” or because it fails to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. SmileCare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 1996). “Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Polich v. Burlington N., Inc., 942 F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir.1991). When exercising its discretion to deny leave to amend, “a court must be guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981).

         III. CORELOGIC'S ...

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.