Aneesah Hasan vs. U.S. Bank NA, et al, No. 1:2010cv00862 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Re: Unopposed Motions To Dismiss 5 , To Strike 6 and To Expunge Lis Pendes 7 , signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/26/2010. (Gaumnitz, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 ANEESH HASAN, 1:10-cv-00862 OWW JLT Plaintiff, 11 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE UNOPPOSED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOC. 5), TO STRIKE (DOC. 6) AND TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDES (DOC. 7) v. 12 13 U.S. BANK, NA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 In December 2006, Plaintiff Aneesh Hasan obtained a loan in 16 17 18 the amount of $309,000.00, secured by a deed of trust encumbering real property in Bakersfield, California. Doc. 1-1 ( Compl. ) 19 ΒΆ1; Doc. 8. Defendant s Request for Judicial Notice ( RJN ), Ex. 20 A. 21 foreclose on the real property. 22 C (Notice of Trustee s Sale). 23 24 Plaintiff defaulted on the loan, and Defendants proceeded to RJN Exs. B (Notice of Default) & Plaintiff, who is represented by Gary Patton, Esq., of the Prodigy Law Group in Irvine, California, filed this lawsuit on April 13, 2010, see Compl., and 25 26 recorded a notice of lis pendes, RJN Ex. D. Plaintiff s 27 complaint, which was removed from the Superior Court for the 28 County of Kern, alleges (1) violations of California Business and 1 1 Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., ( UCL ); (2) fraud; (3) 2 breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) 3 conversion; (5) quiet title; (6) fraud in the inducement; (7) 4 unfair business practices; (8) breach of fiduciary duty; (9) 5 6 7 wrongful foreclosure; (10) civil conspiracy; (11) aiding and abetting; (12) unlawful joint venture; (13) injunctive relief; 8 (14) rescission of loan contracts; (15) breach of contract; (16) 9 and violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures 10 Act ( RESPA ) and Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ). 11 12 13 14 15 Before the court for decision are Defendants motions: (a) to dismiss all of the claims in the Complaint, Doc. 5; (b) to strike the punitive damages prayer, Doc. 6; and (c) to expunge lis pendes, Doc. 7, all of which were filed on May 21, 2010 and set 16 for hearing on July 26, 2010. 17 motions were due on July 12, 2010. 18 230(c)(requiring opposition or statement of non-opposition to be 19 filed not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the noticed 20 hearing date). 21 Plaintiff s oppositions to these See E.D.C.A. Local Rule As of July 21, 2010, counsel had not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition. Court staff left a 22 23 24 voicemail message for Plaintiff s counsel on or about July 14, 2010, reminding counsel of his obligation to file a statement of 25 non-opposition if he did not intend to oppose the motions. 26 Counsel never responded to that call. 27 28 No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a 2 1 motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been 2 timely filed by that party. 3 strike, and expunge lis pendes, filed on behalf of all 4 Id. The motions to dismiss, Defendants, are well-founded and unopposed. Accordingly, these 5 6 7 8 motions are GRANTED. Defendant shall file a form of order consistent with this decision within five (5) days of its electronic service. 9 10 11 12 SO ORDERED Dated: July 26, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
