United States District Court, E.D. California
Honorable Stephen M. McNamee Senior United States District
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.
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.
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
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
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.)
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
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.
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.)
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).
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).