-JLT Jones v. Countrywide HomeLoan et al, No. 1:2011cv00405 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER on Defendant's 6 Motion to Dismiss and 9 Motion to Strike and Related Orders signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 06/16/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COUNTRYWIDE HOMELOAN; ) WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; HOME ) EQUITY LOAN TRUST; BANK OF ) AMERICA; and DOES I-XX, ) INCLUSIVE, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) JOSEPH CRAWFORD JONES, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CV F 11 - 0405 AWI JLT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE AND RELATED ORDERS Doc. # s 6 and 9 17 18 This is an action to quiet title, for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures 19 Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 ( RESPA ), and conspiracy to defraud by plaintiff Joseph Crawford 20 Jones ( Plaintiff ) against defendants Countrywide Homeloan, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 21 Home Equity Loan Trust, Bank of America, and Does I-XX (collectively, Defendants ). In 22 the instant motion Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff s Fourth Amended Complaint 23 ( 4AC ). This action, which was originally filed in Kern County Superior Court, was 24 removed to this court on March 9, 2011. Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant 25 to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper in this court. 26 FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 27 Plaintiff s 4AC is short on facts. At issue in this action is property located in 28 Bakersfield, California (the Property ). Plaintiff alleges that on or about January 20, 2005, 1 he entered into a mortgage agreement with Weyerhaeuser Mortgage Company to purchase the 2 Property. At some point in 2007, Plaintiff alleges Weyerhaeuser ceased to exist and the 3 mortgage was assigned to Defendant Countrywide. Plaintiff alleges he tried to obtain loan 4 modification from Countrywide beginning in October 2007; that is, about the same time as 5 the rates on his adjustable-interest mortgage were subject to increase. Loan modification was 6 not forthcoming. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Countrywide foreclosed on the Property 7 sometime in 2008. 8 Plaintiff s first claim for relief is a claim to quiet title as against Defendant 9 Countrywide. There appear to be two possible grounds. First, Plaintiff alleges Defendants 10 wrongfully foreclosed on the Property after inducing [Plaintiff] to dismiss his bankruptcy 11 petition. Doc. # 1-5 at 129:19-21. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Countrywide 12 made a deliberate and affirmative decision to deprive [Plaintiff] of critical information 13 relating to his mortgage, namely, that Countrywide was acting as proxy for Bank of America 14 and Wells Fargo and as such, Countrywide did not have the capacity to foreclose on the 15 subject mortgage. Doc. # 1-5 at 159:26-160:5. 16 Plaintiff s second claim for relief alleges that sometime around [September 17, 17 2007]" Plaintiff submitted a Qualified Written Request to Countrywide consistent with 12 18 U.S.C. section 2605, which state in relevant part, that Countrywide had to acknowledge the 19 request within 20 business days and must try to resolve the issue within 60 business days. 20 Doc. # 1-5 at 132:1-10. Countrywide did not respond. 21 Plaintiff s third claim for relief seeks to quiet title as to any claim by Defendant Wells 22 Fargo, N.A. on the Property. Plaintiff s claim is based on the theory that Wells Fargo, who 23 evidently purchased the Property at the foreclosure sale, was not a bona fide purchaser for 24 value because Wells Fargo had notice of Plaintiff s asserted rights in the Property. 25 26 Plaintiff s fourth and final claim for relief alleges conspiracy to defraud against Defendants Wells Fargo and Countrywide. The court has reviewed Plaintiff s claim for 27 28 2 1 conspiracy and can find no factual allegations beyond the conclusory allegation that 2 Defendants, and each of them, conspired to participate in a fraudulent scheme to foreclose 3 on Plaintiff s residence. Doc. # 1-5 at 136:13-15. Apparently, the claim of fraud is based 4 primarily on the allegation that Defendants agreed to not protect Plaintiff from the wrongful 5 foreclosure of his Property. No other factual allegations can be drawn from the 4AC. 6 Defendants memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss references a number 7 of facts not evident in the complaint that are supported by documents of which the court may 8 take judicial notice. The court will identify those documents where they are used to establish 9 facts alleged by Defendants in their motion to dismiss. Defendants allege, and provide filed 10 documents to show, that Plaintiff executed two mortgages on January 20, 2005, both with 11 Weyerhaeuser Mortgage Corp. One was in the amount of $244,000 and the other was in the 12 amount of $61,000. Both loans were transferred to Defendant Countrywide Home Loans 13 prior to October 2007 and both were secured by deeds of trust on the Property. Defendants 14 allege that Defendant stopped making payments on his loans and was in arrears by an amount 15 greater than $18,000 as of January 2008. A notice of default was recorded in the Kern 16 County Official Records on January 28, 2008. 17 Plaintiff failed to cure the default on the loans and a Notice of Trustee s Sale was 18 recorded on May 5, 2008, noting a total balance due of $386,581.78 on both loans. On 19 September 30, 2008, the Property was sold to Wells Fargo bank for $179,633. As of the time 20 of the trustee s sale, bankruptcy proceedings were pending pursuant to a petition that had 21 been filed on July 16, 2008. The July 16 bankruptcy petition was apparently the fourth that 22 Plaintiff had filed since 2001. The bankruptcy proceedings on the July 16 petition did not 23 close until May 8, 2009. Plaintiff has not make any payments on his loan since July 31, 24 2007. 25 26 This action was originally filed in Kern County Superior Court on November 19, 2009. All previous amendments were made while the action was still in the Superior Court. 27 28 3 1 The action was removed to this court under federal question jurisdiction upon filing of the 2 4AC on February 11, 2011. The instant motion to dismiss was filed on March 16, 2011. As 3 of the date of this writing, no opposition has been filed by Plaintiff. The court notes that 4 appropriate proof of service of Defendants motion to dismiss has been filed. A motion to 5 strike certain portions of Plaintiff s 4AC was filed on the same date as the motion to dismiss. 6 No opposition to the motion to strike has been received either. 7 8 9 LEGAL STANDARD A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be based on the failure to allege a cognizable legal theory or the failure to allege 10 sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 11 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir.1984). To withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 12(b)(6), a complaint must set forth factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief 13 above the speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 14 ( Twombly ). While a court considering a motion to dismiss must accept as true the 15 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 16 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), and must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party 17 opposing the motion, and resolve factual disputes in the pleader's favor, Jenkins v. 18 McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969), the allegations must be 19 factual in nature. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ( a plaintiff s obligation to provide the 20 grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 21 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do ). The pleading standard 22 set by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not require detailed factual 23 allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 24 accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) ( Iqbal ). 25 26 The Ninth Circuit follows the methodological approach set forth in Iqbal for the assessment of a plaintiff s complaint: 27 28 4 1 [A] court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. 2 3 4 Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 5 1950). 6 7 DISCUSSION 8 I. Judicial Notice 9 As a general rule, a district court may not consider any material beyond the 10 pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. [Citation.] Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 11 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). However, a district court may consider materials in a 12(b)(6) 12 motion to dismiss that are not part of the pleadings but that are matters of public record of 13 which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Id. 14 Specifically, a district court may take judicial notice of public records related to legal 15 proceedings in both state courts and in the district court. See Miles v. State of California, 16 320 F.3d 986, 987 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court taking judicial notice of related state court 17 proceedings). Similarly, a court may take judicial notice of a mortgage that is attached to the 18 defendant s motion to dismiss without converting the motion to a motion for summary 19 judgment. Lubuanan v. U.S. Bank N.A., --- F.Supp.2d ---, 2011 WL 939039 (D. Hawai i 20 (2001)) at *11 n.13. The court may also take judicial notice of documents, including deeds of 21 trust and related to deeds of trust that are filed in the public record. Hensley v. Bank of New 22 York Mellon, 2011 WL 2118810 (E.D.Cal. 2001) at * 2 n.3 (citing Lee v. City of Los 23 Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). 24 Defendants request that the court take judicial notice of Plaintiff s mortgages, deeds 25 of trust and related documents, and of records of prior proceedings in state court that pertain 26 to the dismissal of earlier amendments of Plaintiff s action. See Defendants Request for 27 28 5 1 Judicial Notice, Doc. # 7, Filed March 16, 2011. In particular, Defendants request judicial 2 notice of Exhibits numbered A, B, C and D to Defendants Request for Judicial 3 Notice as these represent true copies of both the mortgage notes and Deeds of Trust 4 associated with Plaintiff s two adjustable-rate mortgages. Next, Defendants request the court 5 take judicial notice of Exhibits C, D, E, F, G and H because these documents 6 were recorded in the Kern County Official Records and are therefore public records. Finally, 7 Defendants request that the court take judicial notice of Exhibits I through R , inclusive 8 because these represent court documents pertaining to this action. Exhibits I through M 9 were filed in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California and Exhibits N 10 through R were filed in Kern County Superior Court. 11 The court has reviewed the documents listed and has determined that they may be 12 judicially noticed for the reasons given above. There being no objection, and good cause 13 appearing, the court hereby grants judicial notice for Exhibits A through R, inclusive, of 14 Doc. # 7. 15 II. Plaintiff s Claims to Quiet Title as to Countrywide and Wells Fargo Bank 16 The first and third claims for relief set forth in Plaintiff s 4AC request declaratory 17 relief to quiet title as to the claims of Countrywide and Wells Fargo Bank to the Property, 18 respectively. Defendants assert several grounds for denial of Plaintiff s claim to quiet title 19 including; (1) Plaintiff cannot divest Defendant Wells Fargo of title to the Property because 20 Wells Fargo was a bona fide purchaser for value at the trustee s sale; (2) Plaintiff lacks 21 standing to quiet title because he has failed to allege full tender; (3) Plaintiff s contention that 22 the beneficiary of a trust deed loses the power of sale when a mortgage is securitized is 23 without merit; and (4) Plaintiff cannot quiet title based on any alleged duty to modify the 24 loans. 25 26 The court agrees that Wells Fargo Bank did purchase the Property at the trustee s sale and that Wells Fargo is therefore the bona fide purchaser of the Property for the reasons set 27 28 6 1 forth in Defendants motion to dismiss. See Doc. # 6 at 11:18-28 (citing Melendrez v. D & I 2 Investment, Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1251 (2005). To this the court would add that, to the 3 extent it is Plaintiff s contention that Countrywide was without authority to foreclose on the 4 property because Countrywide was acting as proxy for Bank of America and Wells Fargo, 5 that contention is without legal or logical support. 6 Plaintiff does not contend that the original lender, Weyerhaeuser Mortgage, was 7 prevented from selling the note and security agreement to Countrywide or that the transfer to 8 Countrywide was unlawful in any way. Thus, following the sale of the promissory note and 9 Deed of Trust to Countrywide, Plaintiff continued to be obligated by the terms of those 10 documents to Countrywide just as he had been to Weyerhaeuser Mortgage. Pursuant to the 11 Deed of Trust, the lender; that is, Countrywide, has the power to declare default and has the 12 power of sale. See Exh. C at ¶ 22. Because Countrywide had the power under the Deed 13 of Trust to declare default and order the sale of the Property, and neither Wells Fargo or Bank 14 of America had that power, it makes no sense to allege that Countrywide declared default and 15 ordered foreclosure acting as a proxy. Using the word proxy to describe the relationship 16 between Countrywide and any other Defendant or institution is both legally and logically 17 inaccurate. Using the word proxy does not transmute Countrywide s foreclosure on the 18 Property into an unlawful act. The court concludes that Plaintiff s first and third claims for 19 relief fail to allege any fact that would tend to render the sale of the Property by Countrywide 20 to Wells Fargo unlawful or actionable. 21 Defendants also contend Plaintiff lacks standing to bring an action to quiet title 22 because he has failed to allege tender. California Code of Civil Procedure § 761.020 states 23 that a claim to quiet title requires: (1) a verified complaint, (2) a description of the property, 24 (3) the title to which a determination is sought, (4) the adverse claims to the title against 25 which a determination is sought, (5) the date as of which the determination is sought, and (6) 26 a prayer for the determination of the title. The tender rule applies to a quiet title action 27 28 7 1 because the claim is implicitly integrated to the foreclosure sale. Kozhayev v. America's 2 Wholesale Lender, No. CIV S-09-2841 FCD DAD PS, 2010 WL 3036001, at *5 (E.D.Cal. 3 Aug.2, 2010); see also Shimpones v. Stickney, 219 Cal. 637, 649, 28 P.2d 673 (1934). Thus, 4 a quiet title action is doomed in the absence of Plaintiffs' tender of the full amount owed. 5 Gjurovich v. Cal., No. 1:10-cv-01871-LJO-SMS, 2010 WL 4321604, at *8 (E.D.Cal. Oct.26, 6 2010). 7 The court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged tender of the balance due on the loans 8 nor has he offered any reason why tender should not be required. To the extent Plaintiff s 9 4AC can be interpreted to allege that tender should not be required because securitization 10 of the loans somehow invalidates either Wells Fargo s ownership interest or Countrywide s 11 power to foreclose, Plaintiff has offered absolutely no legal basis for such a proposition. 12 While Plaintiff never explains what is meant by the word securitization, the court 13 presumes, arguendo, that securitization involves the transferred of the promissory note by 14 sale to an asset portfolio in some form of structured investment vehicle; for example, a 15 collateralized debt obligation ( CDO ). A CDO is an example of the type of complex 16 investment vehicle that was more-or-less commonplace during the time period in question. 17 This type of investment vehicle purports to give investors an interest in the cash flow from 18 the promissory notes that are the underlying assets of the CDO. Thus, the portfolio of 19 underlying assets is the collateral and source of cash flow for the CDO security. See Core 20 Wealth Management, LLC, v. Heller, 2010 WL 1453068 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2010) at * 2. 21 Thus, in this example, the promissory note is sold as an asset entitling the entity creating the 22 CDO to all future cash flows from the mortgage. It does not follow that any of the other 23 entitlements of the lender of the Deeds of Trust, including the power to declare default, are 24 transferred or lost because of the transfer or sale of the cash flow due from the mortgage. 25 Plaintiff cites no authority at all for the proposition that the sale or transfer or alienation of 26 the promissory note changes, modifies, or eliminates the power of the designated beneficiary, 27 28 8 1 here the lender. Given that the court can find no authority that supports Plaintiff s implicit 2 legal proposition and can see good reason why the proffered legal proposition should be true, 3 the court finds that the legal theory related to securitization, to the extent it has been 4 expressed at all, is completely without support. 5 The court need not address the remainder of Defendants grounds for dismissal of 6 Plaintiff s first and third claims for relief. Plaintiff s first and third claims for relief will be 7 dismissed for the reasons discussed. 8 III. Plaintiff s RESPA Claim 9 Plaintiff s 4AC alleges that [s]ometime around [September 17, 2007] Plaintiff 10 submitted a Qualified Written Request to Countrywide consistent with 12 U.S.C. section 11 2605, which states in relevant part, that Countrywide had to acknowledge the request within 12 20 business days and must try to resolve the issue within 60 business days. Countrywide did 13 not respond to the request . . . . Doc. # 1-5 at 132:1-10. Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 14 2605(e)(1)(B), a Qualified Written Request ( QWR ) is a written correspondence . . . that: 15 (i) includes, or otherwise enables the servicer to identify, the name and account of the borrower; and 16 (ii) includes a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower, to the extent applicable, that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower. 17 18 Id. 19 Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2614, any claim alleging violation of section 2605 must be 20 filed within three years of the alleged violation of that section. Thus, the court lacks subject 21 matter jurisdiction in this action over any claim for violation of section 2605 that was filed 22 later than September 17, 2010. Defendants allege that Plaintiff s claim for RESPA violation 23 appears for the first time in his 4AC, which was filed on February 24, 2011. The court has 24 examined the original complaint and each of the prior amendments, which are provided as 25 exhibits to Defendants Notice of Removal. Doc. #1. 26 The original complaint is provided as Exhibit I to Doc. # 1-1 and was filed on 27 28 9 1 November 20, 2009. The First Amended Complaint was fled on July 1, 2010, and is set forth 2 at Exh. 8" of Doc. # 1-1. Plaintiff Second Amended Complaint was filed on August 24, 3 20110 and is set forth at Exh. 11 of Doc. # 1-3. Plaintiff s Third Amended Complaint was 4 filed on October 27, 2010, and is set forth at Exh. 15" of Doc. # 1-4. As previously noted, 5 the currently-operative 4AC was fled on February 24, 2011. The court has examined 6 Plaintiff s original complaint and each of the amendments. While the court agrees that a 7 claim for violation of RESPA is not formally alleged in any of the complaints prior to the 8 4AC, the court does find that the Third Amended Complaint does set forth a claim for 9 Accounting which essentially alleges that Plaintiff communicated his dispute regarding the 10 history of his payments and what he owed, but received no reply from Defendants. While 11 this claim could arguably be construed to have alleged at least the substantive requirements of 12 a RESPA claim, the court must conclude that this claim, as well as the claim alleged in 13 Plaintiff s 4AC was filed after the statute of limitations on the claim had run; in the case of 14 Plaintiff s third amended complaint, the limitations period had run about 30 days prior to the 15 filing of the claim. 16 Plaintiff has alleged no basis for tolling of the statute of limitations and no reason is 17 apparent to the court. The court therefore concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction 18 over Plaintiff s claim for violation of RESPA either as inferred by Plaintiff s Third Amended 19 Complaint or as formally pled by Plaintiff s 4AC. The court need not determine the merits of 20 Defendants contention that the communication that was sent by Plaintiff on or about 21 September 27, 2007, was not a QWR within the meaning of the statute. 22 IV. Conspiracy to Defraud 23 Plaintiff s forth claim for relief alleges conspiracy to defraud against Defendants 24 Countrywide and Wells Fargo. For the most part, the claim is unintelligible. The elements of 25 common law fraud normally requires the plaintiff to prove (a) [a] misrepresentation ...; (b) 26 knowledge of falsity (or scienter ); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) 27 28 10 1 justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage. Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 2 (1996). It appears the gravamen of Plaintiff s fraud claim is that the named Defendants 3 conspired to participate in a fraudulent scheme to foreclose on Plaintiff s residence. Doc. # 4 1-5 at 136:13-15. The fraudulent scheme is never explained. Plaintiff alleges: 5 6 7 8 Defendants breached their duties and/or acted in a knowing or grossly negligent manner to the detriment of Plaintiff, and thus foiled a system of checks and balances consisting of the normal custom and standard in foreclosure proceedings established by statute in California. ¶ The closing of the Transaction herein would require the simultaneous failure of all such parties which Plaintiffs [sic] is informed and believes, were herein intended and so orchestrated so as to defraud Plaintiffs [sic], with the express and/or implicit knowledge and concurrence of each of the Defendants. 9 Doc.# 1-5 at 136:25-137:8. 10 Defendants contend that Plaintiff s conspiracy to defraud claim fails because Plaintiff 11 has failed to allege any underlying tort. The court agrees. Even if the court were to diligently 12 sift through all the allegations set forth in Plaintiff s 4AC in order to restate Plaintiff s 13 conspiracy claim in a coherent form, the best that would emerge is the allegation that 14 Countrywide foreclosed on Plaintiff s loans unlawfully and Wells Fargo was somehow in on 15 it. Thus construed, Plaintiff s claim must fail because, as previously discussed, there has 16 been no showing that the foreclosure was in any way unlawful. 17 The court concludes that Plaintiff s 4AC fails to state a claim for conspiracy to 18 defraud because there is no showing of an underlying unlawful act or showing of an intent to 19 misrepresent. Plaintiff s fourth claim for relief will therefore be dismissed. 20 V. Leave to Amend 21 If a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, leave to amend should be 22 granted unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with the 23 challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency. Schreiber Distributing Co. v. 24 Serv-Well Furniture Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, Plaintiff has had 25 the benefit of four opportunities to state a viable claim for relief. While the court is aware 26 that not each of the amendments have been adjudicated, Plaintiff has at least had in each case 27 28 11 1 the benefit of Defendants motions for demurrer or for dismissal. The court must presume 2 that Plaintiff would have alleged a set of fact sufficient to support a claim for relief by now if 3 such facts could be alleged. The court must now conclude that further amendment would be 4 futile. Plaintiff s action will therefore be dismissed in its entirety without leave to amend. 5 6 7 THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiff s fourth amended complaint in its entirety is 8 GRANTED. Plaintiff s fourth amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED in its 9 entirety as to all Defendants. Such dismissal is WITH PREJUDICE. 10 2. Defendants motion to strike is DENIED as moot. 11 3. Defendants motion to dismiss Defendant Bank of America is DENIED as moot. 12 4. The Clerk of the Court shall ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants and shall 13 CLOSE the CASE. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: 0m8i78 June 16, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.