Jeanny T. Chan v. Bank of America N.A. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case -- Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities --

C.D. Cal.July 25, 2016

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 0 cr 0 81 E - W - W 0 a C.) .>:c- 0 z E- 2 2 Z °3 CC 0 mg o N z co BRYAN CAVE LLP Robert E. Boone III, California Bar No. 132780 Nicole N. King, California Bar No. 290204 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 576-2100 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 Email: reboone@biyancave.com nicole.kingbryancave. com Attorneys for Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Jeanny T. Chan, on behalf of herself and all others Similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. Bank of America, N.A., J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank, N.A., CitiMortgage, Wholesale America, U.S. Bank N.A., Union Bank of Switzerland IndyMac Bank (now known as One West Bank), CMG, First Key, EMC, Ocwen, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, quality Loan Service Corp,-Veripnse Processing Solution LLC-, SPS/Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Recovery Services LLC, Provident Funding Associates LP, Cashcall, Inc, Option One Mortgage Corp, Soundview Home Loan Trust and DOES 1-50, Defendant(s). Case No. 2:16-cv-03016-DSF(ASx) Assigned to Hon. Dale S. Fischer DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [F. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)] [Filed with Proposed Order] Date: August 29, 2016 Time: 1:30.m. Courtroom: 8 p 40 1151652 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y S T R E E T , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 i , : (310) i ile: (310) 576- r l . ing@bryancave. vs , . ., i (UBS), ri ’ ’ : August 2 , i e: 1:30 . Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:228 0 0 • < o_ E - W - W 0 < 0 .>,c- 0 z 0 3 g ° CC 0 mg o cNi • z cc co 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 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 29, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard in Courtroom 840 of the above entitled Court, located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA") will, and does, move the Court for an order dismissing the Complaint of plaintiff Jeanny T. Chan ("Plaintiff') for her failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), 9(b) and 12(b)(6). This Motion is made on the following grounds: 1. The Complaint as a whole fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against BANA.1 The Complaint fails to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 2. The second claim for relief for "Violations of the HBOR Act §2923.7" fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against BANA. 3. The third claim for relief for "Violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Ca. Bus. & Professional [sic] Code 17200, et seq." fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against BANA, including alleging fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b). 4. The fourth claim for relief for "Wrongful Foreclosure and Set Aside Foreclosure Sale" fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against BANA. 5. The fifth claim for relief for "Declaratory Relief' fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against BANA. 6. The sixth claim for relief for "Unjust Enrichment" fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against BANA. 1 Plaintiff does not assert her first cause of action for Violations of the Homeowners' Bill of Rights, HBOR Act §2924.18(a)(1) and §2923.6(c) against BANA. 1151652 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y S T R E E T , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 “ ” tiff nny . an “ laintif ”) t clai u i i f gra u F Civil Proc , . t gr a 1 The Complaint fails to contai “a short an plai i t t t e leader is entitled to relief.” “ ” “ ” r f “ r l sure ale” f ils t gra t a f “ l ratory elief” “ ” 1 ’ Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:229 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 7. Plaintiff lacks Article III standing as to BANA because she fails to allege any injury in fact traceable to any conduct by BANA. 8. In the event the Motion is not granted in its entirety, Plaintiff should be required to provide a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). BANA makes this Motion following a conference which took place on June 22, 2016 pursuant to Local Rule 7-3.2 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and records on file in this action, and all briefs, papers, and arguments that the Court may consider Dated: July 25, 2016 Robert E. Boone III Nicole N. King BRYAN CAVE LLP By:/s/ Nicole N. Kin Nico e N. King Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. 2 • During the conference of counsel, Plaintiff's counsel indicated that Plaintiff will be filing a First Amended Complaint "in the next two to three weeks" to modify her allegations against BANA and other defendants. The parties then stipulated to extend BANA's time to respond to the initial complaint until July 25, 2016 pursuant L.R. 8- 3. On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel filed a master joint stipulation to extend Plaintiff's time to file a First Amended Complaint by September 30, 2016 and allow BANA 30 days from the filing and service of that complaint to respond. This Court has not made a ruling on the stipulation. As a result, BANA had no choice but to file the instant motion. 1151652 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 i tiff l ks rticle III ding s se . 2 g__________ l ’ “ ” ll ti ai st and other defendants. ’ ti On July 15, 2016, lai tiff’s counsel filed a ast r j i t ti ’ ti This ourt as t s a result, i Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:230 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 0 o_ • E - W - W 0 L> a N < 0 .>,c- 0 z 3 g ° CC 0 mg o N • z cc co 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 Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 A. Summary of Allegations in the Complaint 2 B. The Complaint Does Not Contain Any Factual Allegations Against BANA 3 C. The Putative Classes 4 III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS 4 IV. ARGUMENT 5 A. Plaintiff's Complaint Does Not Meet Rule 8's Notice Pleading Requirements 5 B. Alternatively, the Court Should Order Plaintiff to Provide A More Definite Statement of Her Claims Against BANA 7 C. Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief for Violations of the HBOR Act §2923.7 Fails Against BANA 8 D. The Third Claim for Relief for Violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Ca. Bus. & Profess. Code 17200, et seq. Fails Against BANA 8 1. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert a UCL Claim Against BANA 9 2. Plaintiff Does Not Allege Unlawful Conduct Against BANA...10 3. Plaintiff Does Not Allege Unfair Conduct 10 4. Plaintiff Does Not Plead Fraudulent Conduct 11 5. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Restitution From BANA 12 E. Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action for "Wrongful Foreclosure and Set Aside Foreclosure Sale" Fails Against BANA 13 F. Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief Fails Against BANA 14 1151652 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y S T R E E T , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 i ............................................................................................. ........................................................................... ............................................. ..................................................................................................... ............................................................................... LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION T I ...................................... . ARGUME .................................................................................................... ’ ’ ........................................................................................... ................................. ’ l i ................................................................. .... . ........................................................................................... ... ................................. ............................ .................. ’ t “ ” ............................... ’ ift ...................................................................................... Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:231 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 G. Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment Fails Against BANA 15 V. PLAINTIFF LACKS ARTICLE III STANDING TO SUE BANA FOR WANT OF INJURY IN FACT THAT IS TRACEABLE TO BANA 16 VI. CONCLUSION 16 1151652 ii NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 ’ i t ...................................................................................... ........... ............................................................................................... Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:232 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Pa Cases Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Florida Community College, 77 F.3d 364 (11th Cir. 1996) 7 Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes, 160 Cal. App. 4th 136 (2008) 12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) 5 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1991) 5 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) 4, 5, 6 Belle v. Chase Home Finance LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80993 (S.D. Cal. 2007) 7 Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544 (2007) 10 Cal. Ins. Guar. Ass 'n v. Superior Court, 231 Cal. App. 3d 1617 (1991) 14 Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's, LLC, 3 Cal. 4th 223 (2006) 12 9 Comm. for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma Cnty. v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1177 .D. Cal. 2009) 7 Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co., 23 Cal. 4th 163 (2000) 12 Daro v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (2007) 9 Debrunner v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 204 Cal. App. 4th 433 (2012) 13 Destfino v. Kennedy, 2009 WL 63566 (E.D. Cal. 2009) 6 Dinosaur Development, Inc. v. White, 216 Cal.App.3d 1310 (1989) 15 Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass 'n, 182 Cal. App. 4th 247 (2011) Estate of Migliaccio v. Midland Nat'l Lie Ins. Co., 436 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (C.D. Cal. 200 5 Gauvin v. Trombatore, 682 F. Supp. 1067 (N.D. Cal. 1988) 6 Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1149 (2011) 13 1151652 111 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 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 Chabner v. United of Omaha Lie Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2000) 11 B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y S T R E E T , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 iii ge(s) .................................................................................... ................................................................................. .............................................................................................. .................................................................................... ......................................................................................... ....................................................... ............................................................................... ’ ................................................................................ . ’ 9 Cal. 4th 223 ( ............................................................................................ it f aha Lif .................................................................................. . Supp. 2d 1 7 (N.D. Cal. .................................................................... ............................................................................................ ................................................................................. ’ ................................................................................. ............................................................................ .................................................................................. ’ ................................................................................. li i v. idland Nat’l if 6).................................................................... ......................................................................... ............................................................................... Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:233 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 I.E. Assocs. v. Safeco Title Ins., 39 Cal. 3d 281 (1985) 13 In re Firearm Cases, 126 Cal. App. 4th 959 (2005) 9, 10 In re Stac Electronics Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399 (9th Cir. 1996) 5 In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009) 11 Jensen v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp, 702 F. Stipp. 2d 1183 (E.D. Cat 2010) 10 Jogani v. Super. Ct., 165 Cal.App. 4th 901 (2008) 15 Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) 11 Krantz v. BT Visual Images, 89 Cal. App. 4th 164 (2001) 10 Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Indus. Group, 713 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2010) 13 Madrid v. Perot Sys. Corp., 130 Cal. App. 4th 440 (2005) 12 McBride v. Boughton, 123 Cal.App. 4th 379 (2004) 15 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d. 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) 5, 7, 8 McKell v. Wa. Mut., Inc., 142 Cal.App. 4th 1457 (2006) 15 Melchior v. New Line Prods., Inc., 106 Cal.App. 4th 779 (2003) 15 Peterson v. Cellco P 'ship, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1583 (2008) 9 Roberts v. L.A. County Bar Ass'n, 105 Cal. App. 4th 604 (2003) 14, 15 Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. App. 4th 917 (2003) 11 Spoken, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) 16 Van Dyke Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F. Supp. 277 (E.D. Wis. 1975) 6 Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2007) 5 Statutes Cal. Civ. Code § 1061 13 Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.7 7 1151652 iv NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 ............................................................................................. ............................................................................. .................................................................................... ............................................................................................ u . 183 (E. . Cal. .................................................................. .................................................................................. ................................................................................ ................................................................................... .................................................................. ................................................................................. .................................................................................. 11 ( t i . ............................................................................ ................................................................................ .................................................................................. ’ ................................................................................. ’ ........................................................................... ................................................................................. o ............................................................................................ .......................................................................... .................................................................................. ................................................................................................ ............................................................................................... Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:234 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 Cal. Civ. Code § 2924 12 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1060 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) 4, 5 Other Authorities Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 8 1151652 V NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 v ................................................................................................ ...................................................................................... ............................................................................................... .................................................................................................... .............................................................................................. .................................................................................. Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:235 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Jeanny T. Chan names defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA") in this lawsuit, but her Complaint does not contain any allegations demonstrating any misconduct by BANA, let alone against Plaintiff. As to BANA, the Complaint fails to satisfy Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9 and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff only references BANA in the Complaint's preamble and "The Parties" section. She allegedly obtained a residential mortgage from defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), not BANA. The conduct she alleges pertains to Wells Fargo, not BANA. Nontheless, Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on BANA because it, too, is a bank. This "guilt by association" theory is legally and factually insufficient. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Wells Fargo imposed improper charges on her account and failed to make certain disclosures during the loan's origination. Nowhere in her Complaint does Plaintiff allege how BANA was involved in the origination of her loan. She does not allege any facts showing BANA was a party to her loan. BANA thus cannot be liable for any alleged wrongdoing during the origination of Plaintiff's loan. Plaintiff also alleges Wells Fargo violated California Homeowners' Bill of Rights ("HBOR") by pursuing foreclosure while handling her application for a loan modification. Again, Plaintiff's claim is not actionable as to BANA because she does not show a link between BANA and the alleged HBOR violations. According to the Complaint, BANA never serviced her loan or evaluated her for a loan modification. In sum, Plaintiff fails to specify the role that BANA plays in the alleged misconduct. This renders her allegations insufficient to state a claim against BANA. For the same reasons, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing as to BANA. Her Complaint should be dismissed. If this Court does not dismiss, it should order 1151652 1 0 O • < o_ E - W - W 0 < 0 .>,c- 0 z 0 3 g ° CC 0 mg o cNi • z cc co 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 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y S T R E E T , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 INTRODUCTIO “ ” t l her Co l i d not contai any a legations de t t , l t l i st laintiff. t intif ly rences NA in C i t’ le “ ties” tion. She allegedly obtained a residential mortga fro defen lls o k, . . “ el s argo”), not NA. Th con s all . Nonthel , l i i use it, t o, i . This “guilt by a sociati ” t l ll , i tiff l s ll r unt d t make certai disclo d t loan’s originati re t tiff he es t ll . BANA thus cannot be liable for any alleged wrongdoi d t i tiff’ tiff r ia eo ners’ ill “ ” ification. ’ l i n t acti t i lations. t Co i t, A ever erviced her loan r luated her r l iff ls t t all This renders her alle ati s i ffi i t t r s r s, laintif lacks Article I I standing as to ANA. plaint should be dismis ed. t i d n dis it sho or Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:236 Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of her claims against BANA. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Summary of Allegations in the Complaint Plaintiff alleges Wells Fargo "is the representative example entity that represents violations of each of the other [defendants]" named in this lawsuit and who are collectively referred to as "Defendants." (Compl. at p. 2.) Plaintiff alleges her "allegations referencing Wells Fargo . . . shall include similar allegations against each of the individual defendants." (Compl. ¶ 5.) Allegations against Wells Fargo. Plaintiff alleges she obtained a mortgage loan from Wells Fargo. (Compl. ¶ 9.) She claims she "received and signed a Truth- in-lending Discloser . . . statement that violated TILA." (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges Wells Fargo "violated Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act" by "virtue of their [sic] conduct." (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff further alleges Wells Fargo "unlawfully gave a portion, split or percentage of unlawful charges against [her] account even though [Wells Fargo] performed no actual services in connection with these determinations." (Id. at ¶ 12.) According to the Complaint, Wells Fargo "had no basis for requiring Plaintiff to incur additional expenses on [her] property through [her] loan." (Id. at ¶ 13.) Plaintiff asserts the "payoff and costs associated with [Wells Fargo's] charges in order to avoid further unwarranted charges was substantial and are not required by law." (Id. at iii 14.) Plaintiff also alleges Wells Fargo violated Civil Code Section 2923.7 because it failed to provide her with a single point of contact. (Compl. ¶ 44-52.) She contends "she could not obtain a straight answer from any of the bank's myriad number of purported representatives." (Id. at ¶ 49.) Plaintiff was "shuttled from one 'department' . . . to the next" and "made contact with several different [Wells Fargo] representatives who gave [her] the runaround." (Id. at ¶ 49-50.) She also alleges Wells Fargo wrongfully foreclosed on her property in violation of Civil 1151652 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 0 (_) < 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 intif lleges el s o “ the represe t e le t ts i lations f t ]” ti l referred to as “ efendants.” l. t . .) l i t “ ations referencing Wells Fargo . . shall include similar a legati i i i l efendants.” ll r . She clai s she “recei i iscloser . . state e t t t i ” “ t edures ct” “ ” Plainti f further a le es ll “ l ells rgo] rformed no a al se ices i conn ion thes .” “ i s ” tiff rts “ ff t t lls ’ ti l ” ¶ 1 ide er ith a i gle point of contact. pl. ¶ 4-52.) t nds “s e ld t t in t er r y ’ ” Plainti f was “shuttl f ‘ t’ . . to the next” and “made contact with several differe t [ t ti es ” .) S al s lls ful y reclosed on r rty Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:237 Code §§ 2923.6(c) and 2924.12. (Compl. ¶ 89-93.) Conclusory, generic allegations against all defendants. Based on the allegations directed at Wells Fargo, Plaintiff boldly alleges - without any supporting factual detail - that "[D]efendants, and each of them, engage in a pattern of unlawful business practices in which they acquire or manage bank mortgaged properties, target properties for foreclosure, or otherwise disregard debt validation and verification including ignoring default status of the loan on the real property to consider all properties as secured debt for their profit and gain." (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff also alleges - again without any factual detail - that Defendants "made promises of permanent loan modifications that were illusory." (Compl. ¶ 103.) She contends Defendants "confer[ed] non-gratuitous benefits upon [her]," and "prolonged [the] modification process[] to generate excess revenue." (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges Defendants "delayed foreclosures until the time at which they could produce optimum, or increase profits" and unjustly retained the profits after the sale of the property. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges she "has collectively lost money, property, sleepless nights through the loss of their [sic] homes, relocation costs and loss of equity in their [sic] homes, loss of their [sic] Loan Modification Application, illegal late fees and loss of payments." (Compl. ¶ 86.) She requests "restitution" and disgorgement of "profits" or "all revenue earned as a result of [Defendants'] unlawful acts and practices." (Compl. ¶ 17, 88, Prayer ¶ 6.) Based on the above, Plaintiff asserts six causes of action for violations of the HBOR, violations of Civil Code § 2923.7, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Ca. Bus. & Professions Code 17200, et seq., wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, and unjust enrichment. B. The Complaint Does Not Contain Any Factual Allegations Against BANA Plaintiff's Complaint does not describe a single act of wrongdoing due to 1151652 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 (_) < 0 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 . (c) ( l sory, ric i s t defend ed t t lls argo, Plainti f boldly a leges - it t - that “[D]efendants, and each of the , en a i ss tices t ac or manage bank mortgage propert et rties r for ure, othe di rd vali a ication including ignoring default status of the loan n r t f r their profit and gain.” ti f all - i t fact l detail - ef “ i s ent l an odifications that were il usory.” l. She contends efen a ts “c fer[ ] ” “ .” ts “ l ed reclosures until the ti e ” ti f “ ll r l ” ( o l. . She requests “restituti ” a i “ ” “ re result of [Defen ’ unla a pra ” . Professi 17 s l f de l i tiff’ laint oes t ribe l r Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:238 specific conduct by BANA. (Compl.) The Complaint only references BANA in the preamble and in "The Parties" section. (Id. at p. 2.) C. The Putative Classes Plaintiff seeks to represent two nationwide classes for alleged TILA and RESPA violations by Wells Fargo related to property insurance. (Id. at rlf 24-25.) The Complaint fails to allege any specific violation of TILA or RESPA against any defendant, let alone against BANA, and fails to assert a separate claim under TILA or RESPA. (See id. at I 9-12.) Plaintiff further seeks to represent a class of California borrowers subjected to Wells Fargo's purported HBOR and UCL violations with respect to processing loan modifications and dual tracking with foreclosures. (Id. at ¶ 26.) Plaintiff further seeks to represent a nationwide class of borrowers based upon Wells Fargo's purported "Federal Securities laws" violations related to "risk factors disclosed to plaintiff/borrower upon signing of loan documents." (Id. at ¶ 27.) However, the Complaint fails to articulate any violation of federal securities laws by any defendant, much less cite to any such statutes. Finally, Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class based upon her purported common law claims against Wells Fargo for "breach of contract/breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, concealment and deceit, and unjust enrichment" despite the fact that the Complaint does not actually assert any such claims, except for unjust enrichment (the 6th count). (Id. at ¶ 28.) III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS A complaint shall be dismissed when it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court reads Rule 12(b)(6) in conjunction with Rule 8(a)(2). See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a pleading that states a claim for relief to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Voluminous, convoluted 1151652 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 0 (_) < 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 t . The Co plaint only ref r “ ” i tif ks r t i e ses ¶¶ ¶¶ 9-12. ’ r t i ’ r “ ” “ sed l rro er on i g l doc ” . al y, laintif seeks t r sent nat ide ss d “ t f a fair dealin , frau , conc t t” it th LEGAL STANDARD FOR MOTI t . Fe . . i . . In deciding a moti t dis s ) i conj 8(a)( l . ). Rule 8(a)( ) re l “ er is titled to lief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Voluminous, convol t Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:239 theories do not meet the standard. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal where "despite all the pages . . . one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery"). Rule 8(a)(2) requires "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. "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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Rather, the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . " Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Dismissal is proper where there is either "a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1991). "[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." In re Stac Electronics Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted); accord Estate of Migliaccio v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 436 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2006) ("unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations cast in the form of factual allegations" will not survive a motion to dismiss). A court may dismiss claims without granting leave to amend if amendment would be futile. See Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1258 (9th Cir. 2007). IV. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff's Complaint Does Not Meet Rule 8's Notice Pleading Requirements Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because it does not meet basic 1151652 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 0 (_) < 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 r. 6) (af irming dismissal where “despite all the pages . . . one can r ine from the plaint who is ing ed, r t f, , t il t ery”). l 8( ) r “ ls l sions, and laic recitation of the le ents of ” “ ti t dis i , a co l i t c t s tt r, cepted as true, to ‘ t t i le .’” “ adbare recitals of the ents of c of acti sup l sory t te ents, o ” . . . Rath t “ el . . ” l “ .” Pa e , ( Ci 19 “[C]onclus t .” i 199 (inter citati o it t i i land at’l f Su 2 109 109 (C. Cal 200 “ ” i l i a . ARGUME ’ ’ ’ l i t Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:240 notice pleading requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8's pleading requirements serve as a gatekeeper function, vesting a district court with "the power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558 (citation omitted). Defendants must also have fair or meaningful notice of the specific conduct of which they are alleged to be a part. Id. at 555. Where a plaintiff sues multiple defendants and sets forth multiple causes of action, he "must allege the basis of his claim against each defendant to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) . . . ." Gauvin v. Trombatore, 682 F. Supp. 1067, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (emphasis added). Complaints that allege "wholesale 'everyone did everything' fail to comply with these Rules." Destfino v. Kennedy, 2009 WL 63566, *8 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (dismissing complaint for generally alleging Defendants throughout). "Specific identification of the parties to the activities alleged is required . . . to enable the defendant[s] to plead intelligently." Van Dyke Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F. Supp. 277, 284 (E.D. Wis. 1975). Here, the Complaint asserts six claims for relief against multiple entities but contains no specific factual allegations regarding BANA's conduct. Plaintiff does not allege a single act of wrongdoing by BANA. The Complaint only references BANA in the preamble and in the section listing all of the parties named in the action. (Compl. at p. 2.) Plaintiff then lumps BANA in with the other "Defendants" and asserts claims against the generic group of "Defendants." (Compl.) BANA cannot meaningfully respond to Plaintiff's allegations where it is unclear which, if any, allegations relate to it. The Complaint does not meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s basic notice pleading requirements, and thus should be dismissed. See Belle v. Chase Home Finance LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80993, at *9-*14 (S.D. Cal. 2007). 1151652 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z J z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢ 3 .' 0 0 (_) < 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 (NI ¢ 14 15 1- z a co 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 i . . 8(a). ’ “ .” here a l i tif “ .” . “ ‘ t i ’ .” “ .” i s i i t al ll ations regarding BANA’s conduct. r . The Complai t onl refer le d i ll ( o l. t . . Plainti f then lu ps i “ ” i t t e eric group of “ efendants.” t ingful y respond to laintif ’s l ations here it , ti s r late t it. ’ asi n ti l i r dis Ch Ho Fin L Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 14 of 26 Page ID #:241 B. Alternatively, the Court Should Order Plaintiff to Provide A More Definite Statement of Her Claims Against BANA In the absence of outright dismissal, Plaintiff should be ordered to provide a more definite statement of her claims against BANA. A motion for a more definite statement is proper when the complaint is so vague and ambiguous that the defendant cannot be reasonably required to frame a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The complaint must be pleaded "with such clarity and precision that the defendant will be able to discern what the plaintiff is claiming and to frame a responsive pleading." Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Florida Community College, 77 F.3d 364, 366-67 (11th Cir. 1996). A defendant faced with a "shotgun" complaint, in which it is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief "is not expected to frame a responsive pleading." Id. An order under Rule 12(e) is appropriate when "one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1174, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (Plaintiff's failure to provide a more definite statement warranted dismissal of fifty-three page complaint that "[was] written more as a press release, prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity as to whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs[.]"); see also Comm. for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma Cnty. v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1209 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (Plaintiff was required to provide a more definite statement where "the complaint incorporate[d] the 9-page factual recitation by reference into each claim.... without identifying the specific factual allegations that support each plaintiff's claim against each defendant."). A plaintiff must plead facts attributing wrongful conduct to specific defendants and tie that conduct to a claim for relief. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179. Here, for the same reasons discussed above in Section IV.A., if the Court does 1151652 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z J z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢ 3 .' 0 (_) < 0 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 (NI ¢ 14 15 1- z a co 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 i t . ir t fr e a responsive pleading. he co lai t t l “ it ” t ir. ). “ ” “ ” a “ t i ” . ( tiff’s f t provi a more definite statement wa rant l l i t t “ e i l, it , isenes and l rity tiffs f what wron ” l for Im i ) i tif as ired e r defi stat t “ plaint i corporate[d] the 9-page factual citation y nce ea i . it out tifying the ific l tions t s t e ’ ” l l f attri l ct t ific f dants and tie t ct t Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:242 not dismiss the claims asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff should be ordered to provide a more definite statement of her claims against BANA. C. Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief for Violations of the HBOR Act 2923.7 Fails Against BANA In the second claim for relief, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants for Wells Fargo's alleged violations of Civil Code Section 2923.7. Under this claim, Plaintiff alleges "she could not obtain a straight answer from any of the bank's myriad number of purported representatives." (Compl. ¶ 49.) Plaintiff alleges she was "shuttled from one 'department' . . . to the next" and "made contact with several different [Wells Fargo] representatives who gave her the runaround. (Compl. ¶ 49-50.) Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a viable claim against BANA. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2923.7(a) states, "[u]pon request from a borrower who requests a foreclosure prevention alternative, the mortgage servicer shall promptly establish a single point of contact and provide to the borrower one or more direct means of communication with the single point of contact." Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.7. Here, Plaintiff cannot plead a violation of Section 2923.7 against BANA because BANA was not her lender. Nor does she allege facts showing BANA ever serviced her loan. Section 2923.7 is thus not triggered against BANA, and BANA cannot be held liable for any alleged violation of the statute. This claim should be dismissed as to BANA. D. The Third Claim for Relief for Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law Fails Against BANA California's Business and Professions Code section 17200 ("UCL") prohibits unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. A court may not allow a plaintiff to "plead around an absolute bar to relief simply by recasting the claim as one for unfair competition." Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000). 1151652 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 0 (_) < 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 ’ ’ § s l f reli f, Plai ti s da fr ’ ti s f il tion 23.7. t cl i tif lleges “she ould ot tain i ht s er from any f ’ er f r orted representatives.” pl. ¶ .) Plai ti l “ t led from one ‘department’ . . to the next” and “made contact i ral rent el s ] sentatives ho ve the runarou lai tiff’s a legations fail to state a i l l “ r re a foreclos r pre t alt rt icer al ptly establish a single point f tact d ide t er e co i ation ith t e le i t ” al. i . , tiff t vi l Secti 29 . agai t r. or does s e alle f t s . Section 2923. is thus not trigger a i t l i lation of the statute. ’ ’ “ ” ful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices. al. us. f. A court ay not a lo a plai tif t “ l r .” Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:243 Plaintiff's UCL claim fails for several reasons. She lacks standing to assert her UCL claim against BANA. She also does not allege facts showing how BANA treated her unlawfully, unfairly or deceptively. Plaintiff also does not allege how BANA has improperly collected money from her that should be returned. 1. Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Assert a UCL Claim Against BANA Standing to pursue a UCL claim is limited to certain specified public officials and to any private person who "has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition." Peterson v. Cellco P 'ship, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1583, 1590 (2008). The plaintiff must allege facts showing the unfair business practice caused her harm. Daro v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 1099 (2007); In re Firearm Cases, 126 Cal. App. 4th 959, 981 (2005) (A UCL violation may not be established "without a link between a defendant's business practice and the alleged harm.") The "causal connection is broken when a complaining party would suffer the same harm whether or not a defendant complied with the law." Daro, 151 Cal. App. 4th at 1099. Here, Plaintiff alleges "as a direct and proximate result of Wells Fargo's unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct . . . Plaintiff has collectively lost money, property, sleepless nights through the loss of their [sic] homes, relocation costs and loss of equity in their [sic] homes, loss of their [sic] Loan Modification Application, illegal late fees and loss of payments." (Compl. ¶ 86.) Such allegations are insufficient to show an ascertainable loss of money caused by BANA's wrongful conduct that would allow for relief under a UCL claim. Indeed, Plaintiff alleges no interactions with BANA. (Compl. rlf 53-88.) Nor does Plaintiff allege she saw, received or relied on, any representations by, or acts of, BANA in her dealings with Wells Fargo. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff's allegation that she lost her home due to Wells Fargo's conduct concedes BANA did not sell her property in a foreclosure sale. Plaintiff has thus not "lost property" due to BANA's conduct. Jensen v. Quality Loan Serv. 1151652 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 0 (_) < 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 tiff’ l s ns. S lac st . he als d s t all f t lly, fairly or eceptively. “ r .” ’ . , ). The plaintiff must a leg fact sho t u Fir ( ti n “ t def ’ busi ctice and e ged arm.”) The “causa con ion br n .” , i tif lleges “as pr te lt ’ l, fair, and fraudulent conduct . . Plainti f has co lecti l l l s f a ents.” tions re fficient to as le s sed ’ f l uct t at ld llo r f r i . Indeed, Plaintif all inter . (Compl. ¶¶ 5 r tiff’ ll ’ i t ll r r ert in a foreclosure sale. “l r ” t ’ con Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 17 of 26 Page ID #:244 Corp, 702 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Plaintiff's UCL claim fails for lack of standing. See In re Firearm Cases, 126 Cal. App. 4th at 981. 2. Plaintiff Does Not Allege Unlawful Conduct Against BANA Plaintiff also fails to plead unlawful conduct in violation of the UCL. "A violation of another law is a predicate for stating a cause of action under the UCL's unlawful prong." Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt, Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1554 (2007). Also, a plaintiff must plead facts to support the underlying statutory violation. Id. Thus, a UCL claim stands or falls depending on the fate of antecedent substantive causes of action. Krantz v. BT Visual Images, 89 Cal. App. 4th 164, 178 (2001). Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing BANA violated any law. Plaintiff alleges Wells Fargo violated a laundry list of statutes. (Compl. ¶ 72) Liability for these violations cannot be imputed to BANA. Without any accompanying facts to suggest how BANA violated these statutes or Plaintiff's status as protected persons under the statutes, Plaintiff does not state a claim under this prong against BANA. Berryman v. Merit Property Mgmt, Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544, 1554 (2007) (affirming demurrer to UCL claim where complaint "provides a laundry list of state and federal statutes [defendant] allegedly violated," but "fails to plead facts to support its allegations that [defendant] has violated each of these statutes"). In addition, Plaintiff's other causes of action fail on their own for the reasons discussed in this Motion. Because Plaintiff fails to plead any statutory or common- law causes of action which might serve as the predicate for their UCL claim against BANA, Plaintiff's third claim for relief fails. Krantz, 89 Cal. App. 4th at 178. 3. Plaintiff Does Not Allege Unfair Conduct Plaintiff also fails to plead unfair conduct in violation of the UCL. When "`determin[ing] whether the challenged conduct is unfair within the meaning of the unfair competition law . . ., courts may not apply purely subjective notions of fairness." Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. App. 4th 917, 941 (2003). A 1151652 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 0 (_) < 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 , ( . . al. 2010). ’ i tiff lso f ils t d la ful conduct in violation of the UCL. “ i i r t ’ l ” an . rit p. t. . Also, a plaintiff must plead facts to support the underl t t i g violated any law. lls argo violated a laundry list of statutes. pl. ¶ 2) i t t t . it t a ac ’ an . I 1 1 (2 “ l t s dant] al egedly violated,” but “fails to d t ” ’ . ecaus lai ti f il t l t ’ i tiff lso ils t fair nduct in iolation of the CL. “‘ t ir petition law . ., court ma not apply purel subj s ss.’” . t 7, 941 (2003). Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 18 of 26 Page ID #:245 plaintiff's claim of violations of Section 17200, if based on some public policy, must be "tethered" to a specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision to find an objective basis for determining whether the alleged conduct is unfair. See id. at 940. A business practice may also be "unfair" if it "is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers[; this inquiry] requires the court to weigh the utility of the defendant's conduct against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victim." Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass 'n, 182 Cal. App. 4th 247, 257 (2011). Here, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing BANA engaged in any "unfair" conduct against her. (See Compl. IN 73-88.) Plaintiff also does not tether a violation by BANA to a specific constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision. (Id.) Nor does Plaintiff allege facts showing BANA's conduct was immoral, unethical, or unscrupulous. Plaintiff fails to allege any relationship or contact whatsoever with BANA. (Compl.) As a result, BANA could not have acted "unfair" towards Plaintiff. 4. Plaintiff Does Not Plead Fraudulent Conduct Where a UCL claim is grounded in fraud, Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standards apply. Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009). To state a claim under the "fraudulent" prong of the UCL, "it is necessary to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived." In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298, 312 (2009). A plaintiff alleging fraudulent conduct under the UCL must plead and prove "actual reliance." Id. at 326. To satisfy the actual reliance requirement, private plaintiffs must allege the defendants' actions were an "immediate cause of the injury producing conduct." Id. When the pleaded facts "do not naturally give rise to an inference of causation the plaintiff must plead specific facts affording an inference the one caused the other[]." Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes, 160 Cal. App. 4th 136, 146 (2008). 1151652 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 (_) < 0 1 2 .=; co E co . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 tiff’ vi l Se t 0, s p l p li “t ” t a specifi constit ti r b ss tice ay lso “u r” i it “is i moral, unethic ssive, scrupulous or t tial y j rious rs[; in ’ t l ” l ss’ , tiff l d “ ” ct t pl. ¶¶ 73-8 .) l iff s t r i a specific constituti st t regul t pr Plai all fa sho ’ con wa im t ical, r rupulous. l t a le any relatio cont tsoever with BANA. pl.) As a result, BA co n ha act “ ” gr fr 9( ’s heighte ple “ ” “ rs ” A plainti f a leging fraudul c “ ” To satisfy the actual relia uirement, private plaintiffs must al ege the ndants’ tions re “ t.” “ i t ing ce t ” l Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 19 of 26 Page ID #:246 Here, Plaintiff does not allege facts showing fraudulent conduct by BANA. (Compl. ¶ 53-88.) Plaintiff does not allege any specific or false representation made to her by BANA. Plaintiff thus cannot allege facts identifying who made an alleged representation, their authority to speak, when the representation was made, or what was said on behalf of BANA. (Compl. ¶ 53-88.) Nor may Plaintiff plead, with the required particularity, actual reliance upon any action or statement by BANA. Plaintiff also cannot plead specific facts affording an inference that any conduct by BANA caused her harm. (Id.) She also cannot plead reliance on any conduct by BANA, or show how BANA caused her to lose money or property. (Id.) 5. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Restitution From BANA "The UCL limits the remedies available for UCL violations to restitution and injunctive relief." Madrid v. Perot Sys. Corp., 130 Cal. App. 4th 440, 452 (2005). "[T]he trial court may not make an order for disgorgement of all benefits defendant may have received from [the unfair conduct]. It may only order restitution to persons from whom money or property has been unfairly or unlawfully obtained." Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co., 23 Cal. 4th 163, 172 (2000). Money damages are not recoverable under the UCL. Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn 's, LLC, 39 Cal. 4th 223, 232 (2006). Here, Plaintiff requests "restitution" and disgorgement of "profits" or "all revenue earned as a result of [Defendants'] unlawful acts and practices." (Compl. ¶ 17, 88, Prayer ¶ 6.) Plaintiff is not entitled to this relief from BANA because Plaintiff fails to allege she paid money to BANA that it unfairly retained. In addition, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover disgorgement of "profits" or "revenue earned" under the UCL. See Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal. 4th 163, 172 (2000) ("Fluid recovery is not authorized in a UCL action that is not certified as a class action. For that reason the trial court may not make an order for disgorgement of all benefits defendant may have received.") Finally, according to the Complaint, BANA does not have any funds belonging to Plaintiff. Because 1151652 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 0 (_) < 1 2 .=; .3 E ca . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 f s fr Plaintiff does n t alle i i Plaintiff thus can t all f t i t i , it l . ( Nor ay Plai tif l ired rticularity, actual reliance upon ny ti n st t B “ ” “ f i ived fro [the fair onduct]. It ma only order restit ” , 0). ’ , tiff sts “ titution” d rgement of “ r fits” r “ d s lt ants’ ful ts r ctices.” ( , r .) Plaintiff is not entitled to this relief from BA bec intif fails to llege she id oney to A that it fairly retained. , i tiff t “ ” “r ” ilt “ t it ant ay ave received.”) i , s t l ging to laintif . Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 20 of 26 Page ID #:247 BANA collected nothing from Plaintiff, there is nothing for BANA to return to her. E. Plaintiff's Fourth Claim for Relief for "Wrongful Foreclosure and Set Aside Foreclosure Sale" Fails Against BANA In the fourth claim for relief for wrongful foreclosure, Plaintiff alleges Wells Fargo violated Civil Code §§ 2923.6(c) and 2924.12. (Compl. ¶ 89-93.) Plaintiff alleges Wells Fargo initiated an illegal and fraudulent sale of her property while she was being evaluated for a loan modification. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks to vacate the foreclosure sale. (Id.) California Civil Code sections 2924 et seq. set forth the requirements for conducting a non judicial foreclosure. These requirements "provide a comprehensive framework for the regulation of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to a power of sale contained in a deed of trust." Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1149, 1155, n.5 (2011). "These provisions cover every aspect of exercise of the power of sale contained in a deed of trust." I.E. Assocs. v. Safeco Title Ins., 39 Cal. 3d 281, 285 (1985). "Because of the exhaustive nature of this scheme, California appellate courts have refused to read any additional requirements into the non judicial foreclosure statute." Debrunner v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 204 Cal. App. 4th 433, 441 (2012) (citing Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Indus. Group, 713 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1098 (E.D. Cal. 2010)); accord Gomes, 192 Cal. App. 4th at 1154. Here, Plaintiff cannot plead a wrongful foreclosure claim against BANA because BANA had nothing to do with her foreclosure. BANA was not her lender. BANA did not service her loan. Plaintiff does not allege facts showing BANA held title to interest secured against her property that would authorize BANA the power to foreclose. Absent such facts, BANA was incapable of foreclosing on Plaintiff's property. Because Plaintiff concedes Wells Fargo, not BANA, foreclosed on her property, Plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure claim fails against BANA. 1151652 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm o) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 (_) < 0 1 O .=; .3 E 14 CO c, 0 cNi ¢ 1- z a co 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 ’ “ ” f r f l ted ivil ode §§ 2923.6(c) and 2924.12. pl. ¶ 9-93.) l loan modifi tiff s r ia il f t requir ducting non-judici foreclosur ese re rements “ rovide prehensive framework for the lation f nonjudi fore s t i d i ” . , , ). “These provi r r ct f rcise f er f t ined i ” . s. I . , 5). “Be t ti e t re , i ll te rts - .” t’ it k l 1 1 ( . 2 , tiff t wron f fore l l a i t it r l sure. . Plai tiff t ll . Absent such facts, i i f’ t . Because Plaintif co ’ r f l Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 21 of 26 Page ID #:248 F. Plaintiff's Fifth Claim for Relief for Declaratory Relief Fails Against BANA In Plaintiff's fifth claim for relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment "for money damages against all Defendants" for the alleged wrongful foreclosure of her property. (Compl. ¶ 94-96.) As a threshold matter, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing BANA foreclosed on her property. For the reasons discussed in Section IV.E., Plaintiff cannot recover damages from BANA resulting from Wells Fargo's foreclosure. In addition, Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief fails because it seeks to determine issues that may be resolved through her other claims in the action. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1061. (The Court may thus refuse to grant relief "where its declaration is not necessary or proper under the circumstances.") "Generally, an action in declaratory relief will not lie to determine an issue which can be determined in the underlying tort action." Cal. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Superior Court, 231 Cal. App. 3d 1617, 1623 (1991). Plaintiff's declaratory relief claim raises no issues that are not already raised in her other claims. As a result, her declaratory relief claim should be dismissed with prejudice. Finally, declaratory relief is not available to address past wrongs. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1060 ("The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought." (emphasis added)). "The purpose of a judicial declaration of rights in advance of an actual tortious incident is to enable the parties to shape their conduct so as to avoid a breach. Declaratory procedures operate prospectively, and not merely for the redress of past wrongs." Roberts v. L.A. County Bar Ass'n, 105 Cal. App. 4th 604, 618 (2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). There is "no authority for the proposition that declaratory relief is proper procedure when the rights of the complaining party have crystallized into a cause of action for past wrongs, all 1151652 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z Jt z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 (_) < 0 1 2 .=; .3 E ca . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 ’ ’ fift l i r li , l i “ ” ( . thres all a facts sho i losed n r erty. For the reasons discus i Secti I . l lti ll r ’ , tiff’ r li f ils se t i s t l. . 1 ( t r gr rel “ r tion is t ry r r r stances.”) “ tion ratory relief will not lie det ine i h .” ’ ’ . As a result, her declaratory relief clai sho l b dis i , t ry relief is t ilable to address past rongs. “ i sai declar i sou t.” (e a “ judi d a a act torti i ent is l s ct a bre , ” rts . . t ’ ( ternal quotations and citations omitted). here is “ au rity r t osition that eclaratory relief is roper rocedure when the i hts f t plaining party have crystallized into a cause f i n , Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 22 of 26 Page ID #:249 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 relationship between the parties has ceased to exist and there is no conduct of the parties subject to regulation by the court." Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff alleges her property was sold in a foreclosure sale. (Compl. ¶ 42, 51, 70, 86, 89-93.) She is thus not entitled to declaratory relief on this basis. G. Plaintiff's Sixth Claim for Relief for Unjust Enrichment Fails Against BANA In the sixth claim for relief, Plaintiff attempts to plead a claim for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleges Defendants "made promises of permanent loan modifications that were illusory." (Compl. ¶ 103.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants "confer[ed] non-gratuitous benefits upon [her]," and "prolonged [the] modification process[] to generate excess revenue." (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges Defendants "delayed foreclosures until the time at which they could produce optimum, or increase profits" and unjustly retained the profits after the sale of the property. (Id.) Here, Plaintiff's is not entitled to relief under these claims because California law does not recognize a cause of action for unjust enrichment. See Jogani v. Super. Ct., 165 Cal.App. 4th 901, 911 (2008); McKell v. Wa. Mut., Inc., 142 Cal.App. 4th 1457, 1490 (2006) ("There is no cause of action for unjust enrichment"); McBride v. Boughton, 123 Cal.App. 4th 379, 387 (2004) ("Unjust enrichment is not a cause of action, however, or even a remedy."); Melchior v. New Line Prods., Inc., 106 Cal.App. 4th 779, 793 (2003) (citing Dinosaur Development, Inc. v. White, 216 Cal.App.3d 1310, 1315 (1989)) (Unjust enrichment is "`a general principle, underlying various legal doctrines and remedies"). Even if this Court allows Plaintiff to advance her "unjust enrichment" claim, it still fails against BANA. Again, Plaintiff does not allege any actionable conduct by BANA, let alone precise allegations of specific conduct by BANA that would support an unjust enrichment claim. Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law. 1151652 15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 s ip t een the arties has eased to ist r t s j ct ti n ” l it t s l i f reclosure sale. he is t s t titl t ’ t si cl f reli l ts cl f unj richment. Plainti a le Defe ts “ pr s per t l ifications that ere il usory.” l. Plainti f a leges Defen “ t ” “ l t ss[] ge e rev ” i tiff alle Defe “ ed closures until the i e t co l pro o t , ” ’ i t titl t r li f t l i ) “ r i t rich ent.” “ t r, re ” i r . p. t ( r l ent, I c. l. pp.3d 1310, 15 9) just i h ent is “‘ general principl i l al doctrines and remedies’” “ ” . Again, Plaintiff does n t alle a acti l r l i t clai . ’s clai f il Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 23 of 26 Page ID #:250 V. PLAINTIFF LACKS ARTICLE III STANDING TO SUE BANA "The judicial Power of the United States," Art. III, § 1, . . . extends only to "Cases" and "Controversies." Spoken, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). Standing to sue is a doctrine rooted in the traditional understanding of a case or controversy. Id. The "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing consists of three elements. Id. The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Id. The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements. Id. Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must "clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating" each element. Id. Here, for the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff cannot allege facts showing she suffered an injury in fact that is traceable to BANA's conduct. Plaintiff alleges no interactions with BANA, and cannot allege a loss of money or property due to any conduct by BANA. As such, any injury endured by Plaintiff cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial decision against BANA. VI. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state a claim against BANA. This Court should thus dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, or in the alternative, order Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of her claims against BANA. Dated: July 25, 2016 Robert E. Boone III Nicole N. King BRYAN CAVE LLP By:/s/ Nicole N. Kin Nico e N. King Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. 1151652 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .- cm cr cm a) cm , cm _ 11 12 a 4.) z -1 z -1 -O L>j± 13 ¢3¢ 0 0 (_) < 1 2 .=; .3 E ca . 0 c., ¢ 1- z a co 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 “ l er of the nited States,” Art. III, § 1, . . . ext “ ” “ ” o ing t doct r i t tra iti t ding of “ l ” l t t, , ing stage, the plaintiff must “clearly . . . a le f ” r i i t t i able to ’ ct. l i s t , t ll e uct y A. As such, any injury endure by Plaint ca t ’ . is rt s t ’ , r i tiff t cl g__________ l Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 24 of 26 Page ID #:251 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 O 0 J Xk LL > `C • > , cc C.) 0 0 Z 0 ;C_ 2C., °3 2 CO 0 0 z co PROOF OF SERVICE FRCIVP 5(B) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not aarty to the within action. My business address is 120 Broadway, Suite 300, Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386. On July 25, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as: DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA N.A.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES on the interested party in this action as follows: SEE ATTACHED (VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE) The document was served via The United States District Court -Central District's CM/ECF electronic transfer system which generates a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) upon the parties, the assigned Judge and any registered user in the case. BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused the above-referenced document to be served to the addressee on the attached service list via electronic mail. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 25, 2016, at Santa Monica, California. /s/ Geri Anderson Geri Anderson 1 PROOF OF SERVICE B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 l s, t te f alifornia. and not a party to the within actio . My business ad r , t ica, , . .’ ’S I ; ) t i t rt -Central District’s / : I s t Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 25 of 26 Page ID #:252 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 SERVICE LIST O a 4 • z > `C > , cc C.) ¢ 0 Z 0 - O OO CNI z cc cc co Artin Betpera ab@severson.corn; rjb@severson.corn Andrew Zachary Edelstein aedelstein@mayerbrown.com; tstruwe@mayerbrown.corn; LADocket@mayerbrown.com; cvilla@mayerbrown.com Christopher David Lee clee@dykema.corn; malvarez@dykema.corn Nancy L. Lee nlee@mccarthyholthus.com; sdonovan@mccarthyholthus.corn Mark D. Lonergan mdl@severson.corn; kmd@severson.com; efiling@severson.corn James R. McGuire jmcguire@mofo.corn Andrew C. Stanley-Giles AStanle3q_ jbmofo.corn; rbeltrai4_4mofo.corn Taylor Robert Steinbacher steinbachert@ballardspahr.corn; smithda@ballardspahr.corn Miao Yu lawyerym@hotmail.com 2 PROOF OF SERVICE B R Y A N C A V E L L P 1 2 0 B R O A D W A Y , # 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 4 0 1 m m achary Edelstein aedelstein@mayerbro . m m m m m m m tanley@ m ltran@ m m m Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46 Filed 07/25/16 Page 26 of 26 Page ID #:253 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 BRYAN CAVE LLP Robert E. Boone III, California Bar No. 132780 Nicole N. King, California Bar No. 290204 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 576-2100 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 Email: reboone@bryancave.com nicole.king@bryancave.com Attorneys for Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 2:16-cv-03016-DSF(ASx) Assigned to Hon. Dale S. Fischer [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT [Filed with Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss] Date: August 29, 2016 Time: 1:30p.m. Courtroom: 840 Jeanny T. Chan, on behalf of herself and all others Similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. Bank of America, N.A., J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank, N.A., CitiMortgage, Wholesale America, U.S. Bank N.A., Union Bank of Switzerland IndyMac Bank (now known as One West Bank), CMG, First Key, EMC, Ocwen, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, quality Loan Service Corp, Veriprise Processing Solution LLC, SPSTSelect Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Recovery Services LLC, Provident Funding Associates LP, Cashcall, Inc, OptionOne Mortgage Corp, Soundview Home Loan Trust and DOES 1-50, Defendant(s). [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S MOTION To DISMISS 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 I D FENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’ O I i , : (310) i ile: (310) 576- vs , . ., i (UBS), /Select Portfoli r i i ne rt ’ ’ : August 2 , e: . Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:254 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 [PROPOSED] ORDER The motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jeanny T. Chan's complaint by Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA") came on for hearing before this Court on August 29, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. The Honorable Dale S. Fischer presiding, Having read and considered BANA's 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. BANA's 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 BANA, and no amendment can cure the defects. 2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to BANA. 3. Alternatively, if BANA's Motion is not granted, Plaintiff is ordered to provide a more definite statement of her claims against BANA pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Hon. Dale S. Fischer United States District Judge 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S MOTION To DISMISS 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 I D FENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’ TO I . ’ “ ” he r l l ’ . ’ ti i t ’s l i t il ’ l i t i ’ ti Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:255 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 PROOF OF SERVICE FRCIVP 5(B) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the witnin action. My business address is 120 Broadway, Suite 300, Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386. On July 25, 2016, I served the foregoiocument described as: [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT on the interested party in this action as follows: SEE ATTACHED XI (WA ELECTRONIC SERVICE) The document was served via The United States District Court -Central District's CM/ECF electronic transfer system which generates a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) upon the parties, the assigned Judge and any registered user in the case. BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused the above-referenced document to be served to the addressee on the attached service list via electronic mail. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 25, 2016, at Santa Monica, California. / s / Geri Anderson Geri Anderson 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 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 , tate of alifornia. e i hi i . My business address is t , 25, 2016, I served the foregoing document describe N I , .’ I I ’ I i t i (VIA LECTR IC S R I ) The document was serve i i -Central District’s CM/ i arti , I ca s t e e a resse the a tached service list i l i i July , i / e nder Case 2:16-cv-03016-DSF-AS Document 46-1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:256 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 CO O C., O CNI Cc) - - •Tr - D ,3) LIC Ci) > - < <