United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING CALIBER'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND RE DKT. NO. 21
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge.
Mohsen Khaziri brings this case for intentional interference
with prospective economic relations, violations of the
California Homeowner Bill of Rights, and under California
Unfair Competition Law. Defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc.
moves to dismiss Khaziri's complaint. Because the Court
finds Khaziri has failed to state any claim, the Court GRANTS
Caliber's motion to dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
purchased a home in 2004. Dkt. No. 19 at 4. Khaziri alleges
that when he entered into the home loan, the terms of the
loan were explained to him by his Persian real estate agent,
in his native Farsi. Id. Per Khaziri, he
“always represented” to his agent that he sought
a fixed rate mortgage loan including fixed payments, and his
agent told him the loan documents he was signing were
consistent with his request. Id.
January 2015, Khaziri's loan payments were approximately
$1, 800 per month. Id. at 5. However, in January
2015, Khaziri's monthly payment jumped to approximately
$5, 000 per month. Id. Eventually, Khaziri was
unable to make his loan payments, and on or about November
16, 2016, a notice of default was recorded against his
property. Id. According to Khaziri, he decided that
rather than lose his home, he would sell it in a private
to Khaziri, his mortgage loan has been, and is serviced by,
Caliber during the relevant time period in this case.
Id. at 3. In January 2017, Khaziri alleges he called
Caliber's customer service line to inform it that he
wanted to sell his home, to which the representative stated
that Khaziri needed to have his real estate agent call
Caliber's agent-only line. Id. Allegedly, no
mention of a foreclosure date was made during that call.
Id. Per Khaziri, at this time, he had an offer
pending on his property and a scheduled closing day.
Id. Khaziri's agent later contacted the
agent-only line, providing the listing and escrow numbers for
the property, and Caliber allegedly designated a specific
person of contact for future correspondence. Id.
alleges that weeks later, he contacted Caliber to inform that
he had secured a buyer and was in escrow. Id.
According to Khaziri, Caliber's representative's
response was: “You better sell as soon as you can. Our
foreclosure department has their own rules.”
Id. Khaziri alleges that he reminded Caliber that he
was trying to sell his property to avoid foreclosure, but was
told that Caliber had a right to foreclose. Id. at
5-6. Days later, Caliber allegedly recorded a notice of
trustee's sale on his property, and when Khaziri's
private buyer learned of these circumstances, the buyer
cancelled the sale. Id. at 6. “In backing out
of the sale, the buyer specifically cited, in writing, issues
with title and upcoming foreclosure sale as the rationale for
not moving forward with the purchase.” Id.
initially filed this lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior
Court on March 7, 2017. Dkt. No. 1-1. Caliber timely removed
this case to federal court on March 27, 2017. Dkt. No. 1.
Caliber moves to dismiss Khaziri's complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 21. Both
parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. Nos. 6, 13.
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint.
Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
On a motion to dismiss, all allegations of material fact are
taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to
the non-movant. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80
F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court, however, need
not accept as true “allegations that are merely
conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig.,
536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). Although a complaint
need not allege detailed factual allegations, it must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). A claim is facially plausible when it “allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
court grants a motion to dismiss, leave to amend should be
granted unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by
the allegation of other facts. Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).
moves to dismiss each of Khaziri's claims.
Khaziri Fails to State an Intentional Interference With