Stephen H. Johnson et al v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case On Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof

C.D. Cal.January 12, 2017

L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 1 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS LOCKE LORD LLP Nina Huerta (SBN: 229070) nhuerta@lockelord.com Aileen Ocon (SBN: 240417) aileen.ocon@lockelord.com 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213-485-1500 Facsimile: 213-485-1200 Attorneys for Defendants CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. and U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEPHEN H. JOHNSON AND PAULA A. JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Hon. Percy Anderson DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: February 13, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 9A [Filed concurrently with: (1) Request for Judicial Notice; and, (2) [Proposed] Order] Complaint Filed: October 7, 2016 Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:342 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 2 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on February 13, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter be heard in the above-entitled Court, Defendants CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. (“Caliber”) and U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST (U.S. Bank Trustee,” collectively with Caliber, “Defendants”) will bring for hearing before the Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 9A of the United States District Court located at 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, a Motion to Dismiss each alleged claim in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) of Plaintiffs Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson (“Plaintiffs”). Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on grounds that Plaintiffs’ FAC fails to state any claim against Defendants upon which relief can be granted. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings, papers and records on file in this action, and such oral argument as may be presented at the time of the hearing. This Motion seeks dismissal of all of Plaintiffs’ claims in the FAC against Defendants. On January 4, 2017, counsel for Defendants met and conferred with pro per Plaintiffs pursuant to Local Rule 7-3. The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the issues raised in this Motion. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:343 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 3 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Dated: January 12, 2017 Respectfully submitted, LOCKE LORD LLP By: /s/ Aileen Ocon Nina Huerta Aileen Ocon Attorneys for Defendants CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. and U.S.BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:344 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES................................................ 1 I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 1 III. ARGUMENT........................................................................................................ 3 A. Applicable Legal Standard......................................................................... 3 B. Plaintiffs Lacks Standing To Assert Any Claims Against Defendants.................................................................................................. 3 C. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Quiet Title Claim .............................................. 5 D. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Under Section 1641(g) of the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA’”)................................................................ 6 E. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Under the Real Estate Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605 ............................................................ 6 F. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C § 1692 et seq. .................................. 8 G. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Breach of Contract Claim................................. 8 H. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claim..................................................................... 9 I. Plaintiffs’ Wrongful Foreclosure Claim Fails As A Matter of Law.......... 9 J. Plaintiffs’ HBOR Claims Fail As A Matter of Law ................................ 10 K. Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Under the UCL..................................... 11 L. Plaintiffs’ Fail To State A Declaratory Relief Claim............................... 12 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 13 Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:345 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 ii DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) FEDERAL CASES Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................... 3 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)................................................................................................... 3 Austin v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2014 WL 3845182, No. 14-cv-00970 JAM-AC, (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2014) ............. 3 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)................................................................................................... 3 Che v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 847 F.Supp.2d 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2012)....................................................................... 6 Ford v. Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB, No. C 12-00842 CRB, 2012 WL 2343898 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2012) .................... 5 Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 08-5586, 2009 WL 322915 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009)......................................... 8 Hamilton v. Bank of Blue Valley, 746 F.Supp.2d 1160 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................... 5 Hawkins v. First Horizon Home Loans, No. 10-1876, 2010 WL 4823808 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) .................................... 8 Heflebower v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, No. 12-1671, 2014 WL 897352 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014) ...................................... 10 Melegrito v.CitiMortgage Inc., No. C 11-01765 LB, 2011 WL 2197534 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) .......................... 4 Padayachi v. Indymac Bank, No. 09-5545, 2010 WL 1460309 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2010) .................................... 12 Rosenfeld v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 732 F. Supp. 2d 952 (N.D. Cal. 2010)....................................................................... 9 Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:346 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 iii DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.) Page(s) Santos v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-02642, 2009 WL 3756337 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009) .................................. 12 Shelby v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-02844, 2015 WL 5023020 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) .................. 10 Shoyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 12 Sorenson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010) ......................................................................................... 11 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................... 3 Vaccarino v. Midland Nat. Life Ins., Co., No. 11-05858, 2011 WL 5593883 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011)................................ 12 Van Egmond v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 2012 WL 1033281 (C.D. Cal. March 21, 2012)........................................................ 7 Vega v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 654 F.Supp.2d 1104 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ..................................................................... 10 STATE CASES Aguilar v. Bocci, 39 Cal.App.3d 477-478 (1974).................................................................................. 5 Armstrong Petrol. Corp. v. Tri Valley Oil & Gas Co., 116 Cal. App .4th 1375 (2004) .................................................................................. 8 Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163.............................................................................................. 11 Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 758 (2010) ............................................................................................. 12 Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377................................................................................................ 11 Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:347 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 iv DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.) Page(s) Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 612 .................................................................................... 11 Krantz v. BT Visual Images, LLC (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 164 .................................................................................... 11 Lona v. Citibank, N.A., 202 Cal.App.4th 89 (2011) ...................................................................................... 10 Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Dep’t of Parks and Recreation, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1031 (1992) .................................................................................... 9 Secrest v. Security Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2, 167 Cal.App.4th 544 (2008) ...................................................................................... 4 FEDERAL RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)..................................................................................................... 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .................................................................................................. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 17............................................................................................................ 3 FEDERAL STATUTES 12 U.S.C. § 2605, et seq. ............................................................................................ 6, 7 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(C) .............................................................................................. 7 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1) .................................................................................................... 7 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) ........................................................................................................ 6 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. ................................................................................................ 8 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3) ...................................................................................................... 8 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) ...................................................................................................... 8 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(d) ...................................................................................................... 8 Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:348 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 v DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.) Page(s) STATE STATUTES Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq........................................................................ 11 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. .................................................................................. 12 Cal. Civ. Code § 1624(a)(6)............................................................................................ 4 Cal. Civ. Code § 1698(a) ................................................................................................ 4 Cal. Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(1)....................................................................................... 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 2922..................................................................................................... 4 Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6................................................................................................ 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.7................................................................................................ 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.55.............................................................................................. 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.9................................................................................................ 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.10.............................................................................................. 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.11.............................................................................................. 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.12.............................................................................................. 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.17.............................................................................................. 10 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 761.020 ...................................................................................... 5 Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:349 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 1 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. (“Caliber”) and U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST (U.S. Bank Trustee,” collectively with Caliber, “Defendants”) in an attempt to delay the non-judicial foreclosure sale of the real property located at 10578 Deer Canyon Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 (the “Subject Property”). The crux of Plaintiffs’ boilerplate First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is their hollow claim that Defendants “have no ownership interest entitling them to collect payment or declare a default or attempt to foreclose” on the Subject Property. Plaintiffs offer no factual allegations to support this claim, but more importantly, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this lawsuit since neither of them were the borrowers on the mortgage loan in question. As explained more fully below, the loan in question was obtained in 2006 by decedent Ruth M. Bass-Wallace. Plaintiffs are strangers to this loan, have never assumed this loan, and therefore, they have no rights or obligations under the Note and Deed of Trust relating to this loan. Plaintiffs’ FAC should be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On or about November 21, 2006, Ruth M. Bass-Wallace (“Ms. Wallace”) obtained a $780,000.00 mortgage loan from Washington Mutual Bank, FA, which was secured by a Deed of Trust on the Subject Property. (FAC, Exh. B.) The Deed of Trust securing the loan identified Ms. Wallace as the borrower and California Reconveyance Company (“CRC”) as the Trustee. (Id.) The Subject Property is now being foreclosed upon after payments on the Washington Mutual loan fell into significant default. While Plaintiffs allege they are owners of the Subject Property and refer to the Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:350 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 2 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Washington Mutual loan as “Plaintiffs’ debt obligation” (see e.g., FAC, p. 9), Plaintiffs never actually allege they are the borrowers of the subject mortgage loan or that they have assumed the obligations under the Note and Deed of Trust reflecting the subject mortgage loan. Nor could they. The Deed of Trust Plaintiffs attach to their FAC identify Ms. Wallace as the sole borrower. (See FAC, Exh. B at p. 1.) Moreover, the Deed of Trust states that “any Successor in Interest of Borrower who assumes Borrower’s obligations under this Security Instrument in writing, and is approved by Lender, shall obtain all of Borrower’s rights and benefits under the Security Instrument unless Lender agrees to such release in writing.” (FAC, Exh. B at p. 10, para. 13.) Importantly, Plaintiffs do not allege in the FAC that they ever assumed Ms. Wallace’s mortgage loan, nor do they attach any written assumption. On or about June 12, 2012, NDSC caused a Notice of Default (“NOD”) to be recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County. (Request for Judicial Notice [“RJN”], Exh. A.) The NOD noted that as of June 9, 2012, the borrower, Ruth M. Bass-Wallace, was $34,563.19 in arrears on her mortgage loan. (Id.) On or about November 18, 2014, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, acting in its receivership capacity as receiver of Washington Mutual Bank f/k/a Washington Mutual Bank, FA executed a Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association. (RJN, Exh. B.) This Assignment was recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County on November 24, 2014. (Id.) On or about October 7, 2015, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale (“NOTS”) was recorded. (RJN, Exh. C.) On or about March 18, 2016, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association executed an assignment of the Deed of Trust to U.S. Bank Trustee, and an Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded in the Official Records of San Bernardino County on May 17, 2016. (RJN, Exh. D.). The FAC does not allege that the Subject Property has yet been sold at a trustee’s sale. /// Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:351 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 3 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS III. ARGUMENT A. Applicable Legal Standard “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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, in resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court engages in a two-prong inquiry. First, a court accepts all well-pled allegations as true, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citation omitted). A court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id. (citation omitted). Nor need a court “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). Second, the court determines whether the well-pled factual allegations are sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citation omitted). “[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]’-‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). B. Plaintiffs Lacks Standing To Assert Any Claims Against Defendants Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 (“Rule 17”), an action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17. “Whether a party is the real party in interest under Rule 17 depends on the applicable state substantive law.” Austin v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2014 WL 3845182, No. 14- cv-00970 JAM-AC, *2 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2014) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the Deed of Trust encumbering the Subject Property notes the borrower is Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:352 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 4 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Ms. Wallace. (FAC, Exh. B. at p. 1.) Nowhere in the Deed of Trust are Plaintiffs noted as the borrowers. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have commenced this lawsuit asserting ten (10) causes of action based upon a loan transaction they were never a party to. Plaintiffs are not the borrowers on the mortgage loan at issue and the FAC nowhere alleges that they ever assumed the obligations under the Note and Deed of Trust, in writing and with the lender’s consent, as required by the Deed of Trust and the statue of frauds. (See FAC, Exh. B at ¶¶ 13, 18.) California Civil Code Section 1624(a)(6) specifically provides that “(a) The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent: ... (6) An agreement by a purchaser of real property to pay an indebtedness secured by a mortgage or deed of trust upon the property purchased, unless assumption of the indebtedness by the purchaser is specifically provided for in the conveyance of the property.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1624(a)(6); see also Cal. Civ.Code, § 2922 (“mortgage can be created, renewed, or extended, only by writing, executed with the formalities required in the case of a grant of real property”); Cal. Civ. Code § 1698 (a) (“contract in writing may be modified by contract in writing”). Moreover, under California law, an agreement to modify a mortgage loan must be (1) in writing and (2) signed by the party to be charged or it is subject to the statute of frauds. See Melegrito v.CitiMortgage Inc., No. C 11-01765 LB, 2011 WL 2197534, at *13 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (quoting Secrest v. Security Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2, 167 Cal.App.4th 544, 553 (2008) (explaining that a “deed of trust . . . comes within the statute of frauds”)). Acordingly, Plaintiffs lack the required standing to challenge the non-judicial foreclosure and assert any causes of action that arise from the subject mortgage loan transaction to which they were not a party to. As a result, all of Plaintiffs ten causes of actions against Defendants must be dismissed with prejudice. /// Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:353 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 5 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS C. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Quiet Title Claim Plaintiffs’ second cause of action seeks to quiet title against U.S. Bank Trustee based upon the allegation that Plaintiffs “rescinded the [loan] Transaction by sending a Notice to Rescind to their servicer at that time, Chase . . . on July 14, 2015.” (FAC, ¶ 9, at p. 24.) Therefore, “Plaintiffs’ Property [is] free from any encumbrance, lien or cloud created as a result of the [loan] Transaction.” (FAC, ¶ 15 at p. 26.) However, Plaintiffs fail to allege all requisite elements of the cause of action, and therefore, do not adequately state a claim. California law provides that a complaint for quiet title must be verified and must include: (1) a legal description of the property and its street address or common designation, (2) the title of the plaintiff and the basis of the title, (3) the adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff, (4) the date as of which the determination is sought, and (5) a prayer for the determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 761.020. In addition, in order to quiet title in plaintiff’s name alone, a plaintiff must do equity by paying what he/she owes on any debt secured by the property. Aguilar v. Bocci, 39 Cal.App.3d 477-478 (1974). Here, Plaintiffs fail to allege any claims adverse to their title. Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant U.S. Bank claims an interest adverse to Plaintiffs’ Property in the form of the Deed of Trust.” (FAC, ¶ 16, at p. 26.) However, U.S. Bank Trustee has no adverse claim to Plaintiffs’ title because “a deed of trust carries none of the incidents of ownership of the property, other than the right to convey upon default on the part of the debtor in payment of his debt.” Hamilton v. Bank of Blue Valley, 746 F.Supp.2d 1160, 1177 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (quotation omitted); see also Ford v. Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB, No. C 12-00842 CRB, 2012 WL 2343898, at *12-14 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2012) (“Until a foreclosure sale actually occurs, this defect in the Complaint cannot be cured.”). Therefore, because Plaintiff cannot allege that U.S. Bank Trustee has an adverse claim to their alleged title to the Subject Property, Plaintiff's quiet title cause of action fails as a matter of law, and therefore must be dismissed. Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:354 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 6 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS D. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Under Section 1641(g) of the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA’”) Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action alleges that U.S. Bank Trustee violated 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) because it “did not provide Plaintiffs with written notice within 30 days after the date on which they were allegedly assigned the mortgage.” (FAC, ¶ 30.) This conclusory assertion fails to state a claim against Defendants for the following reason. Section 1641(g) of TILA provides that “not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer....” Che v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 847 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1208 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g)). Here, as explained above, Plaintiffs are not the borrowers of the mortgage loan and have not assumed the mortgage loan. Thus, U.S. Bank Trustee had no obligation under this statute to notify Plaintiffs of any assignment of the debt, and therefore could not have violated the statute since the statute does not apply to the Plaintiffs. For this foregoing reason, Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action should be dismissed with prejudice. E. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Under the Real Estate Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605 Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action alleges violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605 against Caliber. Plaintiffs allege they sent Caliber a Qualified Written Request on September 12, 2016 (“QWR”) and “[a]lthough Defendant Caliber responded to Plaintiffs’ request, they did not comply with the requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 2605, et seq. nor did they supply Plaintiffs with all of the information they requested.” (FAC, ¶ 40.) Plaintiffs further allege Caliber violated 12 U.S.C. § 2605 by “(a) fail[ing] to make appropriated corrections in the account of the borrower . . . and (b) fail[ing] to protect Plaintiffs’ credit rating upon receipt of Plaintiffs’ QWR by furnishing adverse information regarding the ownership of Plaintiff’s debt obligation.” (Id. ¶ 41.) Here, Plaintiffs’ RESPA claim again fails as a matter of law because Plaintiffs are not the Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:355 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS borrowers of the mortgage loan at issue, and there is no factual or legal basis for their claim that Caliber was obligated to communicate with Plaintiffs in any fashion with respect to Ms Wallace’s loan. Section 2605 specifies the contents of a proper QWR and the required response to a borrower’s QWR. 12 U.S.C. § 2605 states: Not later than 30 days ... after the receipt from any borrower of any qualified written request ... the servicer shall...(C) after conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written explanation or clarification that includes (i) information requested by the borrower or an explanation of why the information requested is unavailable or cannot be obtained by the servicer; and (ii) the name and telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(2)(C). “RESPA, however, only obligates loan servicers to respond to borrowers' requests for information relating to the servicing of their loans...” Van Egmond v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 2012 WL 1033281, at *4 (C.D. Cal. March 21, 2012) (finding that Defendant provided a complete response to all of Plaintiff’s inquiries that did relate to the servicing of his loan). If a loan servicer fails to comply with the provisions of 12 U.S.C. section 2605, a borrower is entitled to “any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure” and “any additional damages, as the court may allow, in the case of a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the requirements of [12 U.S.C. section 2605].” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1). Here, pursuant to the requirements of 12 U.S.C. § 2605, Caliber’s obligations only apply to the borrower of a mortgage loan. Because Plaintiffs are not the borrowers (see FAC, Exh. B) and they have not assumed the loan, Caliber had no duty to comply with requirements of this statute as it pertains to Plaintiffs. Therefore, because Plaintiffs do not have any standing to assert a claim under RESPA, Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action fails as a matter of law, and thus, must be dismissed with prejudice. /// Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:356 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 8 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS F. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C § 1692 et seq. “In order to establish a claim under the [FDCPA], [a] plaintiff must show: (1) that he is a consumer within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a(3) and 1692c(d); (2) that the debt arises out of a transaction entered into for personal purposes; (3) that the defendant is a debt collector within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6); and (4) that the defendant violated one of the provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a- 1692o.” Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 08-5586, 2009 WL 322915, *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009). Consumer is defined as “any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a(3) Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged that they are a “consumer” as defined by the FDCPA. As explained above, Plaintiffs are not the borrowers of the mortgage loan, and the FAC nowhere alleges that Plaintiffs assumed the obligations of the loan under the Deed of Trust or as required by the statute of frauds. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not obligated to pay any debt to the Defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs lack the standing to assert a FDCPA claim against the Defendants. Moreover, there is nothing in their boilerplate allegations that suggest that they could do so if given leave to amend. G. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Breach of Contract Claim Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action for “Breach of Contract,” similarly fails to state a claim against Defendants. “‘[T]o state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must plead: 1) the existence of the contract; 2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance of the contract; 3) defendant’s breach of the contract; and 4) resulting damages.’” Hawkins v. First Horizon Home Loans, No. 10-1876, 2010 WL 4823808, *9 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (quoting Armstrong Petrol. Corp. v. Tri Valley Oil & Gas Co., 116 Cal. App .4th 1375, 1391 n. 6 (2004)). The seventh cause of action, which is largely based upon vague and general allegations, pleads none of these elements. First and most importantly, there is no contact between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Plaintiffs did not execute the Note or the Deed of Trust, therefore, they Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:357 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 9 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS were never parties to the loan transaction that is the subject of this lawsuit. (FAC, Exh. B.) Accordingly, it is impossible for Plaintiffs to base a breach of contract claim on a Note and Deed of Trust they did not sign and were never a party to. For this reason, Plaintiffs have not and cannot pled a breach of contract claim against Defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action should be dismissed with prejudice. H. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Claim Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing also fails as matter of law, and should be dismissed with prejudice. “[T]he factual elements necessary to establish a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing are: (1) the parties entered into a contract; (2) the plaintiff fulfilled his obligations under the contract; (3) any conditions precedent to the defendant's performance occurred; (4) the defendant unfairly interfered with the plaintiff's rights to receive the benefits of the contract; and (5) the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant's conduct.” Rosenfeld v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 732 F. Supp. 2d 952, 968 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The implied covenant depends on the existence of an underlying contract, is “limited to assuring compliance with the express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated in the contract.” Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Dep’t of Parks and Recreation, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1031, 1032 (1992). Here, as noted above, because no contract exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Plaintiffs’ breach of the implied of covenant of good faith and fair dealing fails as a matter of law. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action must be dismissed with prejudice. I. Plaintiffs’ Wrongful Foreclosure Claim Fails As A Matter of Law To state a claim for wrongful foreclosure, Plaintiffs must allege “(1) the trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust; (2) the party attacking the Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:358 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 10 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS sale (usually but not always the trustor or mortgagor) was prejudiced or harmed; and (3) in cases where the trustor or mortgagor challenges the sale, the trustor or mortgagor tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering.” Lona v. Citibank, N.A., 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 104, 134 (2011). As an initial matter, no foreclosure sale of the Subject Property is alleged to have occurred. (See Compl. ¶ 57.) “[A] purported wrongful foreclosure claim is premature [when] there has been no foreclosure of the property.” Shelby v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-02844, 2015 WL 5023020 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (quoting Vega v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 654 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1113 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Plaintiffs’ wrongful foreclosure cause of action should be dismissed for this reason alone. J. Plaintiffs’ HBOR Claims Fail As A Matter of Law Plaintiffs in a conclusory fashion alleges that U.S. Bank Trustee violated a numerous provisions of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBOR”), specifically California Civil Code Section 2924.17. (See FAC, ¶ 32.) The HBOR provides for a private right of action for violations of its statutory provisions and allows borrowers to sue for injunctive relief and damages for “material violation of sections 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11 or 2924.17.” Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.12 (emphasis added). For purposes of those sections, borrower is defined as “any natural person who is a mortgagor or trustor and who is potentially eligible for any federal, state, or proprietary foreclosure prevention alternative program offered” by his or her servicer. Cal. Civ. Code § 2920.5(c)(1) (emphasis added). “To state a claim under any of these provisions, Plaintiff must plead facts showing “(1) a material violation of one of the enumerated code sections; (2) by a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent; (3) that causes actual economic damages.” See Heflebower v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, No. 12- 1671, 2014 WL 897352, *12 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014) (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiffs lack the requisite standing to assert any violation of the HBOR. Plaintiffs are not the borrowers on the subject mortgage loan and the FAC nowhere Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:359 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 11 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS alleges that Plaintiffs assumed the obligations under the subject loan. Plaintiffs do not allege that the lender approved in written form Plaintiffs’ assumption of the borrower’s rights under the Deed of Trust as required by the Deed of Trust and the statue of frauds. (FAC, Exh. B.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs lack the required standing to challenge the non-judicial foreclosure and assert causes of action pursuant to the HBOR. As a result, Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action must be dismissed with prejudice. K. Plaintiff Fails To State A Claim Under the UCL Plaintiffs’ tenth cause of action is brought pursuant to California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the “UCL”). A claim under the UCL must rest on a violation of some independent substantive statute, regulation or case law. See Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 383; Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 (claim under “unfair” prong of UCL requires statutory violation); Krantz v. BT Visual Images, LLC (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 164, 178 (violation under “unlawful” prong of UCL requires underlying violation of law). Because Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is predicated on the same conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ other causes of action, all of which-as discussed fully herein-are subject to dismissal, the UCL claim fails as well. Furthermore, “a plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under § 17200 ‘must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation.’” Sorenson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)2010 WL 308794, *8 (quoting Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619). But Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to specify how Defendants engaged in any conduct violative of the UCL with the requisite particularity. Plaintiffs have not plead that they have been damaged by the Defendants, as required for standing to bring suit under the UCL. It is black letter law that “[t]o bring a claim under the UCL, … Plaintiffs must have suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property as a result of [the] alleged unfair or fraudulent practices.” DeLeon, Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:360 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 12 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS 2011 WL 311376 at *7 (citing Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code § 17204; Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 49 Cal. 4th 758, 788 (2010)). Here, Plaintiffs only allege that “Plaintiffs have been injured in that a cloud has been placed upon title to Plaintiffs’ Property and Defendants have failed to remove this cloud from Plaintiffs’ title.” (FAC, ¶ 82.) However, this allegation is insufficient to confer standing because Plaintiffs have lost no money or property since the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property has not taken place. Therefore, Plaintiffs lack standing to sue under the UCL, and the claim must be dismissed. L. Plaintiffs’ Fail To State A Declaratory Relief Claim “A claim for declaratory relief … is not a stand-alone claim, but instead depends upon some other substantive basis for liability.” Padayachi v. Indymac Bank, No. 09-5545, 2010 WL 1460309, *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2010); accord Santos v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 09-02642, 2009 WL 3756337, *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2009) (“declaratory and injunctive relief are not independent claims, but rather they are forms of relief”). Here Plaintiffs have failed to plead any cause of action against Defendants on which they could premise a request for declaratory relief. For that reason alone, Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for declaratory relief must be dismissed. See Shoyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the fraud and unfair competition claims, we affirm the dismissal of the claims for declaratory relief on those claims.”).1 Accordingly, this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ first cause of action with prejudice. 1 Accord Padayachi, 2010 WL 1460309 at *2 (a plaintiff “may not maintain a claim for declaratory relief unless one of his other claims survives the motion to dismiss”); Santos, 2009 WL 3756337 at *5 (“[A]ll of plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed, and accordingly plaintiff is not entitled to any such relief.”); Vaccarino v. Midland Nat. Life Ins., Co., No. 11-05858, 2011 WL 5593883, *8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011) (“[B]ecause each of plaintiff’s underlying substantive claims is defective, her claim for declaratory relief fails as well.”) Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:361 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 13 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, each of Plaintiffs’ causes of action fails. Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the motion to dismiss in its entirety without leave to amend, and grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: January 12, 2017 Respectfully submitted, LOCKE LORD LLP By: /s/ Aileen Ocon Nina Huerta Aileen Ocon Attorneys for Defendants CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. and U.S.BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:362 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 14 DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Aileen Ocon, an attorney, do hereby certify that on January 12, 2017, I caused the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF to be served through the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system upon all persons and entities registered and authorized to receive such service. I further certify that a copy was served by U.S. Mail on January 12, 2017 on the following: Stephen H. Johnson Paula A. Johnson 10578 Deer Canyon Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Telephone: 951.756.8000 Facsimile: 909.899.3881 Email: stephensoffice@gamail.com Plaintiffs In Pro Se Dated: January 12, 2017 By: /s/ Aileen Ocon Aileen Ocon Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18 Filed 01/12/17 Page 22 of 22 Page ID #:363 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS LOCKE LORD LLP Nina Huerta (SBN: 229070) nhuerta@lockelord.com Aileen Ocon (SBN: 240417) aileen.ocon@lockelord.com 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213-485-1500 Facsimile: 213-485-1200 Attorneys for Defendants CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. and U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEPHEN H. JOHNSON AND PAULA A. JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Hon. Percy Anderson [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Date: February 13, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 9A [Filed concurrently with: (1) Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint; and, (2) Request for Judicial Notice] Complaint Filed: October 7, 2016 Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18-1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:364 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS The Court, having considered the Motion to Dismiss each cause of action in the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson (“Plaintiffs”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed by Defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc. and U.S. Bank, N.A, as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (“Defendants”) as well as the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint fails to state any claim against Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ___________________ _____________________________ Honorable Percy Anderson United States District Court Judge Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18-1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:365 L o ck e L o rd L L P 3 0 0 S o u th G ra n d A v en u e, S u it e 2 60 0 L o s A n g el es , C A 9 00 71 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 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER Stephen H. Johnson, et al. v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Aileen Ocon, an attorney, do hereby certify that on January 12, 2017, I caused the foregoing [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT to be served through the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system upon all persons and entities registered and authorized to receive such service. I further certify that a copy was served by U.S. Mail on January 12, 2017 on the following: Stephen H. Johnson Paula A. Johnson 10578 Deer Canyon Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Telephone: 951.756.8000 Facsimile: 909.899.3881 Email: stephensoffice@gamail.com Plaintiffs In Pro Se Dated: January 12, 2017 By: /s/ Aileen Ocon Aileen Ocon Case 5:16-cv-02136-PA-GJS Document 18-1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:366