Felma Hurdle v. Citimortgage, Inc. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

C.D. Cal.February 10, 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Alfred Shaumyan, California Bar No. 266908 alfred.shaumyan@bryancave.com BRYAN CAVE LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386 Telephone: (310) 576-2100 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 Attorneys for Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FELMA HURDLE, Plaintiff, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; AND, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM CITIMORTGAGE, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)] [Filed with [Proposed] Order] Date: March 20, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 5D Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 1 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 20, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 5D of the United State District Court, located at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012, the Honorable Otis D. Wright presiding, Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc., will move this Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff Felma Hurdle’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the [Proposed] Order lodged herewith, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and such other matters as the Court may consider. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, CitiMortgage’s counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel on January 12, 2017 and subsequently exchanged emails regarding the motion to dismiss. Dated: February 10, 2017 Alfred Shaumyan BRYAN CAVE LLP By: /s/ Alfred Shaumyan Alfred Shaumyan Attorneys for Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 i CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction .......................................................................................................1 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations........................................................................................2 III. Standard of Review. ..........................................................................................2 IV. All of Plaintiff’s Claims Fail Because CitiMortgage Is Accurately Reporting the Loan............................................................................................3 V. Plaintiff’s FCRA Claim Also Fails Because She Does Not Allege Any Facts Evidencing Any Violations......................................................................4 VI. Plaintiff’s CCRAA Claim Also Fails Because She Does Not Allege Any Facts Evidencing Any Violations......................................................................6 VII. Plaintiff’s RFDCPA Claim Also Fails Because Plaintiff Does Not Allege Any Facts Evidencing Any Violations..............................................................6 VIII. Conclusion.........................................................................................................8 Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 ii CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Other Authorities Arikat v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 430 F. Supp. 2d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2006)............................................................................5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) ........................................2, 3 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) ........................................2, 3 Bradley v. Paypal, Inc., 2009 WL 1035245 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2009) ................................................................4 Braun v. Crew, 183 Cal. 728 (1920)..............................................................................................................4 Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) ..............................................................................................3 Castaneda v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................6, 7 City of Manhattan Beach v. Sup. Ct., 13 Cal. 4th 232 (1996) .........................................................................................................3 DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2008).................................................................................................3 Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008)............................................................................................3 Everts v. Matteson, 21 Cal. 2d 437 (1942) ..........................................................................................................4 Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009)............................................................................................5 Izenberg v. ETS Servs., LLC, 589 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................7 Marks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, 2009 WL 975792 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2009)...................................................................4 Morgera v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2010 WL 160348 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010) ....................................................................6 Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) ..............................................................................................2 Nelson v. Chase Manhattan, 282 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2002)............................................................................................5 Palestini v. Homecomings Fin., LLC, 2010 WL 3339459 (S.D. Cal. August 23, 2010) ............................................................6 Patacsil v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 2010 WL 500466 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010)......................................................................7 Roybal v. Equifax, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (E.D. Cal. 2005) ............................................................................5 Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 iii CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Sipe v. Countrywide Bank, 690 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................................7 Vasquez v. L.A. Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1258 (9th Cir. 2007).................................................................................3 Statutes 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A)..........................................................................................4 Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a) ....................................................................................5, 6 Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.1(b) (1977) ..............................................................................6 Fed. R. Civ. P. § 8(a)(2)...............................................................................................3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ...............................................................................................2 Other Sources 4 Witkin, Summary 10th Sec Trans--Real § 107 (2005) ..................................................4 Miller & Starr, 5 Cal. Real Est. § 13:40 (4th ed.) ..............................................................4 Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.1(a)(2) (1997)...................................4 Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 1 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Memorandum of Points and Authorities I. Introduction Plaintiff Felma Hurdle’s entire lawsuit is based on her incorrect understanding of black letter, hornbook real estate law. Plaintiff concedes that she obtained a loan from CitiMortgage, Inc. in 2002 and does not allege that she paid it off. Yet, she contends that CitiMortgage is inaccurately reporting the loan to Experian because she transferred the property to her ex-husband in 2008. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff purports to assert claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”), and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“RFDCPA”). But transferring the property did not discharge Plaintiff from her contractual obligation to pay the loan. Because Plaintiff is still personally liable for the loan, CitiMortgage is accurately reporting the loan to Experian. Consequently, all of Plaintiff’s claims fail. Plaintiff’s FCRA claim also fails because Plaintiff does not allege any facts evidencing any violations. Plaintiff alleges that CitiMortgage conducted the reinvestigation, which satisfied CitiMortgage’s obligations under the FCRA, and Experian informed her of the results of the reinvestigation. Plaintiff cannot state a claim merely because she disagrees with the results of the investigation. Plaintiff’s CCRAA claim also fails because she does not allege any facts evidencing that CitiMortgage furnished information to the credit reporting bureaus that it knew or should have known was inaccurate. Plaintiff cannot plead any such facts because the credit reporting is accurate. Finally, Plaintiff’s RFDCPA claim also fails because CitiMortgage is not a debt collector under the act and Plaintiff does not plead any facts evidencing any violations of the RFDCPA. For the foregoing reasons, CitiMortgage respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion to dismiss in its entirety, without leave to amend. Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 2 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT II. Plaintiff’s Allegations. In April 2002, Plaintiff purchased a property with “her now ex-husband, Kenneth A. Hurdle.” (Compl. ¶ 23.) At the same time, Plaintiff allegedly obtained a “residential mortgage” from CitiMortgage. (Compl. ¶ 24.) In 2008, Plaintiff and Kenneth A. Hurdle allegedly filed for divorce. (Compl. ¶ 25.) In July 2008, Plaintiff allegedly quitclaimed her interest in the property to Kenneth A. Hurdle. (Compl. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff claims that “[b]y granting Plaintiff’s entire interest to Plaintiffs ex-husband, Plaintiff also relinquished personal liability on the mortgage with CitiMortgage.” (Compl. ¶ 27.) Almost eight years after transferring her interest in the property, Plaintiff allegedly discovered that CitiMortgage was reporting the mortgage on her credit report. (Compl. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff then allegedly disputed the credit reporting with Experian. (Compl. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff alleges that CitiMortgage and Experian investigated her dispute and provided her the results of their investigations. (Compl. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff, however, alleges that CitiMortgage’s investigation was unreasonable because it continued to report the mortgage on her credit report. (Compl. ¶ 43.) III. Standard of Review. Motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1963, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1959 (mere “labels and conclusions” and/or Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 3 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT “formulaic recitation[s] of the elements of a cause of action” will not suffice to overcome a motion to dismiss). Rather, the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1959. Moreover, to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must be “plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Finally, a court may dismiss claims without granting leave to amend if amending the complaint would be futile. Vasquez v. L.A. Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1258 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Granting Vasquez leave to amend would have been futile, and we hold that the district court did not err in preventing such futility.”) IV. All of Plaintiff’s Claims Fail Because CitiMortgage Is Accurately Reporting the Loan. All of Plaintiff’s claims hinge on whether CitiMortgage is accurately reporting the loan to Experian. (See Compl. ¶¶ 28-60.) Moreover, plaintiff must plead facts evidencing inaccurate reporting by CitiMortgage to state any claim under the FCRA or CCRAA. See Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that Plaintiff must raise a genuine issue as to whether a disputed item in her credit file is inaccurate to state a claim under either the FCRA or CCRA); DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61, 67 (1st Cir. 2008) (collecting cases); Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066, 1069 (9th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must make a “prima facie showing of inaccurate reporting” to adequately state a claim); Here, Plaintiff alleges that the credit reporting is inaccurate because she quitclaimed the title to the property. (See Compl. ¶¶ 26-31.) But quitclaiming the title to the property did not relieve her of the obligation to pay the loan. A quitclaim deed only transfers the grantor’s interest in the property. City of Manhattan Beach v. Sup. Ct., 13 Cal. 4th 232, 239 (1996) (“A quitclaim deed transfers whatever Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 4 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT present right or interest the grantor has in the property.”) A quitclaim deed does not transfer the grantor’s interest in the loan. It is well-established that the grantor is still personally liable for the mortgage after transferring title to the property. Braun v. Crew, 183 Cal. 728, 730 (1920) (“Where the purchaser from the mortgagor assumes the payment of the mortgage debt, both are personally liable therefor.”); Everts v. Matteson, 21 Cal. 2d 437, 447 (1942) (“the creditor may treat both the grantor and grantee as debtors”); Miller & Starr, 5 Cal. Real Est. § 13:40 (4th ed.) (borrower “remains personally liable for the debt after a conveyance”); 4 Witkin, Summary 10th Sec Trans--Real § 107 (2005) (“The mortgagor, however, is still liable to the mortgagee, despite the grant.”); Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.1(a)(2) (1997) (“the transferor remains personally liable for the covenants in the mortgage and for the obligation secured by the mortgage, to the extent such liability existed prior to the transfer.”) Because Plaintiff is still personally liable for the loan, CitiMortgage is accurately reporting the loan to Experian and all of Plaintiffs’ claims fail. V. Plaintiff’s FCRA Claim Also Fails Because She Does Not Allege Any Facts Evidencing Any Violations. An FCRA claim must be dismissed “[a]bsent specific factual allegations” that establish “which, if any, of these [FCRA] sections that defendants have violated.” Marks v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, 2009 WL 975792, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2009) (“[M]erely assert[ing] that defendants reported negative marks against her credit.....[is] not sufficient to state a claim under FCRA.”) (emphasis added); Bradley v. Paypal, Inc., 2009 WL 1035245, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2009) (Dismissing plaintiff’s FCRA claim for plaintiff’s failure to allege any “specific facts that constitute a violation.”). While the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that a private right of action against a furnisher of information to a credit reporting agency exists under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s- 2(b), it has been clear that such right exists only when the consumer follows the Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 5 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT procedural step of notifying the credit reporting agency and after the credit reporting agency determines that the dispute is viable and informs the furnisher. 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(3)(A); Nelson v. Chase Manhattan, 282 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding that a private right of action exists if the consumer notifies the credit reporting agency of the dispute and the credit reporting agency does not find the dispute “frivolous or irrelevant”); see also Roybal v. Equifax, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1179-80 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (“[A] private right of action against a furnisher exists only if the disputatious consumer notifies the CRAs in the first instance. The CRAs then have an obligation to investigate whether the claim is frivolous or irrelevant. Once a claim is deemed viable, the CRAs must contact the furnisher which affords an opportunity to investigate and rectify erroneous reports.”); Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[The FCRA] limits this private right of action to claims arising under [section 1681s-2] subsection (b), the duties triggered upon notice of a dispute from a [consumer reporting agency].”). After the consumer satisfies the above steps, the furnisher is then under a duty to reinvestigate the consumer’s claims, but these reinvestigation procedures “ha[ve] been drawn with extreme care,” engendering no liability unless the furnisher violates the literal letter of the law. See Nelson, 282 F.3d at 1060. Indeed, “a furnisher is liable under the FCRA only if it does not respond to a formal notice of consumer dispute from a consumer reporting agency.” Arikat v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 430 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1023-24 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Here, Plaintiff alleges that CitiMortgage conducted a reinvestigation and Experian provided her the results of the reinvestigation. (Compl. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff, however, alleges that CitiMortgage’s investigation was unreasonable because it continued to report the mortgage on her credit report. (Compl. ¶ 43.) The fact that Plaintiff may disagree with the results of the reinvestigation (despite the fact that the reporting is correct) does not itself create any liability for CitiMortgage, so the claim should be dismissed. Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 6 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT VI. Plaintiff’s CCRAA Claim Also Fails Because She Does Not Allege Any Facts Evidencing Any Violations. The CCRAA is codified at California Civil Code section 1785 et seq. Section 1785.25(a) provides that “[a] person shall not furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate.” Civ. Code § 1785.25(a). Plaintiff therefore must allege a specific transaction or experience upon which CitiMortgage furnished information that it knew or should have known was inaccurate. Palestini v. Homecomings Fin., LLC, 2010 WL 3339459, *12 (S.D. Cal. August 23, 2010) (dismissing plaintiffs’ CCRAA claim). A CCRAA claim is subject to dismissal when it is “based on pure speculation.” Id. Here, Plaintiff does not (and cannot) allege any facts suggesting that CitiMortgage furnished information on one or more specific transactions or experiences when it knew or should have known that the information was incomplete or inaccurate. Indeed, as discussed above in Section IV, CitiMortgage accurately reported the loan because Plaintiff is still personally liable for it. Plaintiff’s CCRAA claim therefore fails. VII. Plaintiff’s RFDCPA Claim Also Fails Because Plaintiff Does Not Allege Any Facts Evidencing Any Violations. Conduct undertaken in the course of collecting on a loan secured by residential property is not actionable under the RFDCPA. California enacted the RFDCPA to “prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts[.]” Civ. Code § 1788.1(b) (1977). However, “residential mortgage loans [d]o not fall within the RFDCPA” because they do not constitute consumer debt for RFDCPA purposes. Castaneda v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1197 (E.D. Cal. 2009); Morgera v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2010 WL 160348, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010) (“California courts have declined to regard a residential mortgage loan as a ‘debt’ Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 7 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT under the RFDCPA.”) (citing cases); Patacsil v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 2010 WL 500466, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2010) (“As the courts have repeatedly held, the collection of this debt does not fall under the purview of the RFDCPA.”). Here, Plaintiff alleges that she obtained the “residential mortgage” from CitiMortgage. (Compl. ¶ 22.) Accordingly, CitiMortgage is not a collecting a “debt” under RFDCPA. Plaintiff’s RFDCPA claim fails. Assuming that CitiMortgage collecting a debt under the RFDPCA, which it is not, Plaintiff still fails to state a claim. Under the RFDCPA, a plaintiff must plead “non-conclusory factual” allegations establishing, at a minimum: the existence of a “consumer debt” covered by the RFDCPA; that the defendant is a “debt collector” under the RFDCPA; and that the defendant engaged in conduct prohibited by the RFDCPA, thereby violating a specifically identified RFDCPA provision. See Castaneda , 687 F. Supp. 2d at 1197 (no claim stated where “the [complaint] contains only a conclusory restatement of the definition of ‘debt collector’” without “alleg[ing] facts” that defendants fall within that definition; and where the plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of a consumer debt - “namely that the deed of trust memorializes a ‘consumer credit transaction’ and that the amount owed under the deed of trust is a ‘consumer debt’ according to the RFDCPA”); Sipe v. Countrywide Bank, 690 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1151 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (no claim stated where plaintiff “only generically alleged RFDCPA violations with no facts” that show defendants “engag[ed] in acts (such as harassment) prohibited by the statute”); Izenberg v. ETS Servs., LLC, 589 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1199 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (no claim stated where “[p]laintiffs do not identify the sections of the RFDCPA that [defendant] has allegedly violated”). Here, Plaintiff’s RFDCPA claim is merely based on her faulty credit reporting claims. (See Compl. ¶¶ 54-60.) Plaintiff argues that CitiMortgage violated the RFDCPA because it attempted to collect on the debt by inaccurately reporting the loan to the credit reporting bureaus. (Id.) But, as discussed above in Section IV, the Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 SM01DOCS\1179410.2 8 CITIMORTGAGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT credit reporting is accurate because Plaintiff is still personally liable for the loan. Plaintiff also does not allege that CitiMortgage contacted or attempted to contact her to collect the debt. Plaintiff therefore does not plead any facts evidencing a violation of the RFDCPA. The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s RFDPCA claim with prejudice. VIII. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant CitiMortgage’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Dated: February 10, 2017 BRYAN CAVE LLP BY: /s/ Alfred Shaumyan Alfred Shaumyan Attorneys for Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:104 Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:105 Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22 Filed 02/10/17 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 [PROPOSED] ORDER Alfred Shaumyan, California Bar No. 266908 alfred.shaumyan@bryancave.com BRYAN CAVE LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386 Telephone: (310) 576-2100 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 Attorneys for Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FELMA HURDLE, Plaintiff, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; AND, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CITIMORTGAGE, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22-1 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , S U IT E 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A 9 0 4 0 1 -2 3 8 6 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER [PROPOSED] ORDER The motion to dismiss Plaintiff Felma Hurdle’s complaint by CitiMortgage, Inc. (the “Motion”) came on for hearing before this Court, the Honorable Otis D. Wright II presiding, on March 20, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. Having read and considered Motion and all papers submitted by the parties in support thereof and in opposition thereto, and having heard and considered the oral argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Motion is granted in its entirety without leave to amend because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against CitiMortgage, Inc., and no amendment can cure the defects. 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Honorable Otis D. Wright II United States District Judge Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22-1 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:108 Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22-1 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:109 Case 2:16-cv-08848-ODW-AFM Document 22-1 Filed 02/10/17 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:110