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.

Lou v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

United States District Court, N.D. California

February 26, 2018

RAYMOND W. LOU, Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING CHASE'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW RE: DKT. NOS. 8, 37

          WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Raymond Lou filed this wrongful foreclosure action in California Superior Court against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. (“U.S. Bank”), Chase Home Finance LLC, Summit Management Company, LSF9 Master Participating Trust, and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (“Caliber”), asserting violations of California's Homeowner's Bill of Rights and Unfair Competition Law, and seeking to quiet title. Shortly after defendants removed the action to this court, Chase filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it because it had assigned the loan to U.S. Bank and transferred servicing to Caliber well before initiation of the foreclosure proceedings. Lou fails to address Chase's arguments and includes no allegations that Chase has any interest in his loan or was involved in its servicing at the time of default. Chase's motion is GRANTED. Because these deficiencies cannot be resolved with amendment, his claims against Chase are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         Lou's counsel has since filed a motion to withdraw as attorney because there has been a breach of the retainer agreement and a “complete breakdown in communications[.]” Artinian Decl. ¶ 2. The motion and declaration were served on Lou, as well as defense counsel. No opposition has been filed. I GRANT conditional withdrawal in accordance with Civil Local Rule 11-5(b). Papers may continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes unless and until the client appears by other counsel or pro se. Counsel shall notify Lou of this condition.

         These matters are appropriate for resolution without argument and the hearings are VACATED. Civil L. R. 7-1(b).

         BACKGROUND

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         In November 2006, Lou obtained a $650, 000 mortgage loan from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) secured by a Deed of Trust (“DOT”) against the real property located at 3237 Montevideo Drive, San Ramon, California, 94583. Compl. ¶ 15 (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 8); see DOT (Compl., Ex. A; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 19). The DOT authorizes the lender (Chase) to sell the borrower's loan without prior notice, and it grants the transferee the power to enforce the associated promissory note and DOT. DOT ¶ 20 (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 29).

         In December 2014, Chase assigned “all beneficial interest” in the DOT to U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. (“US Bank”), as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (“the Trust”). Compl. ¶ 18; see Assignment of DOT (Compl., Ex. C; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 42). In 2015, Chase substituted Summit Management Company LLC (“Summit”) as the foreclosure trustee. Compl. ¶ 19; Substitution of Trustee (Compl., Ex. D; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 46).

         In January 2017, Caliber commenced foreclosure proceedings against the property by recording a Notice of Default (“NOD”) with the Contra Costa County Recorder. Compl. ¶ 20; NOD (Compl., Ex. E; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 49). The NOD indicated that Lou had defaulted on his loan payments starting in September 2016, with a defaulted amount of $9, 682.16 as of January 6, 2017. NOD (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 49-50). In April 2017, a Notice of Trustee's Sale (“NOTS”) was recorded, and in May Summit foreclosed the property. Compl. ¶ 22.

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On June 21, 2017, Lou filed this action in California Superior Court against Chase, Caliber, U.S. Bank, the Trust, and Summit.[1] See Compl. He alleges that all defendants violated the Homeowner's Bill of Rights, specifically California Civil Code sections 2923.55 and 2924.12(b), and that all defendants violated California' Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., and he seeks to quiet title against Chase. See generally Compl.

         On July 21, 2017, defendant Caliber removed the action to federal court. See Notice of Removal (Dkt. No. 1).

         LEGAL ...


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.