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.

Khaziri v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 13, 2017

MOHSEN KHAZIRI, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING CALIBER'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND RE DKT. NO. 21

          NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Khaziri 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.

         Until 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 transaction. Id.

         According 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.

         Khaziri 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.

         Khaziri 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.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A 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).

         If a 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Caliber moves to dismiss each of Khaziri's claims.

         A. Khaziri Fails to State an Intentional Interference With ProspectiveEc ...


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.