(PS) Ostrander v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al, No. 2:2009cv01255 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/12/10 RECOMMENDING that defendants' motions to dismiss, 8 , 13 , be granted without leave to amend and this case be closed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PS) Ostrander v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NYCOLE Y. OSTRANDER, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-09-1255 JAM EFB PS vs. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 14 / 15 Presently pending for decision are motions to dismiss plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed by 16 17 defendant Fremont Investment & Loan, Dckt. No. 8, and defendant Countrywide Home Loans, 18 Dckt. No. 13.1 Defendants Litton Loan Servicing and HSBC Bank joined the motions to dismiss 19 on June 19, 2009. Dckt. Nos. 21, 22. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss on 20 June 26, 2009. Dckt. No. 25. These matters were submitted for decision on the papers by order 21 filed July 24, 2009, Dckt. No. 30. For the following reasons, the court recommends that the 22 motions be granted and this case dismissed with prejudice. 23 //// 24 //// 25 1 26 The case was removed by defendants from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento on May 6, 2009. Dckt. No. 1. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 BACKGROUND In the instant action plaintiff challenges the foreclosure of her home. The complaint 3 contains several causes of action, but the underlying theme is that the United States has been in 4 bankruptcy since 1933, thus Federal Reserve notes have no intrinsic value. Compl. at 9. 5 Plaintiff used her home to secure a $330,000 mortgage on the home and later a $37,900 home 6 equity loan. Id. at 6. Plaintiff maintains that because Federal Reserve notes are worthless, she 7 received no consideration in exchange for using her home to secure the loans, thus the loans 8 should be cancelled. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff also alleges a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 9 Organizations Act (“RICO”) violation. Id. at 18. Defendants move to dismiss the entire 10 11 complaint for failure to state a claim. The court notes that virtually identical complaints were filed regarding different 12 properties in Beverly Ostrander v. Fremont Reorganizing Corporation, CIV S-09-1392 MCE 13 KJM, and Michael William Ostrander v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., CIV S- 14 09-0099 JAM KJM.2 Defendant states that all three plaintiffs are related. Dckt. No. 18 at 2. 15 The complaint is also substantially similar to the complaint filed in Khangura v. American 16 Mortgage Express, CIV S-09-0720, LKK JFM. All of these cases were dismissed for the same 17 reasons discussed below. 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a 20 complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it 21 must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 22 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “The pleading must contain 23 something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 24 cognizable right of action.” Id. (quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and 25 2 26 A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 2 1 Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual 2 matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 3 __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has 4 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 5 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. 6 In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true the allegations of the 7 complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), 8 construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and resolve all 9 doubts in the pleader’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 10 869 (1969). The court will “‘presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that 11 are necessary to support the claim.’” National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 12 U.S. 249, 256 (1994) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)). 13 Moreover, pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 14 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 15 The court may consider facts established by exhibits attached to the complaint. Durning 16 v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). The court may also consider facts 17 which may be judicially noticed, Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 18 (9th Cir. 1987); and matters of public record, including pleadings, orders, and other papers filed 19 with the court, Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). The 20 court need not accept legal conclusions “cast in the form of factual allegations.” Western Mining 21 Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 22 A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an 23 opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. 24 See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987). 25 //// 26 //// 3 1 Nonmoving Defendants 2 The moving defendants do not encompass all the named defendants. As explained 3 below, the court will recommend that the motions to dismiss be granted. As to the nonmoving 4 defendants, the court will recommend dismissal as well. “A District Court may properly on its 5 own motion dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such 6 defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants or where claims against such 7 defendants are integrally related.” Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 8 1981). “Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the [plaintiff] cannot possibly win 9 relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). The court’s authority 10 in this regard includes sua sponte dismissal as to defendants who have not been served and 11 defendants who have not yet answered or appeared. Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. 12 Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1995). The claims made here against the 13 nonmoving defendants are integrally related to the claims against the moving defendants. As 14 plaintiff cannot possibly obtain relief, dismissal of the entire action is therefore appropriate. 15 DISCUSSION The gravamen of plaintiff’s complaint is that Federal Reserve notes have no value thus 16 17 she received no consideration in exchange for using her home to secure several loans. Compl. at 18 9-10. Plaintiff contends the loans should be voided as the money she received was worthless. 19 Id. 20 The theory underlying plaintiff’s claims is untenable, frivolous and must be rejected 21 outright. Plaintiff’s claims and other similar theories, have been repeatedly dismissed by the 22 courts as baseless and insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 12(b)(6). See, e.g., United States v. Condo, 741 F. 2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984) (theory 24 that federal reserve notes are not valid currency is frivolous); Foret v. Wilson, 725 F.2d 254, 25 254-55 (5th Cir. 1984) (argument that gold and silver is the only legal tender in United States is 26 hopeless and frivolous); Beaner v. United States, 361 F. Supp.2d 1063, 1067-69 (D. S.D. 2005) 4 1 (granting defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim that their mortgage was void because 2 they did not receive legal tender of gold or silver and ordering plaintiffs to pay sanctions for 3 making frivolous arguments); Rene v. Citibank, N.A., 32 F. Supp.2d 539, 544-45 (E.D.N.Y. 4 1999) (dismissing the defaulting plaintiff’s attempt to rescind a home loan based on its allegation 5 that the lender had provided “illegal tender”); Nixon v. Indiv. Head of Saint Joseph Mortgage 6 Co., 615 F. Supp. 898, 899-901 (N.D. Ind. 1985) (dismissing the plaintiff’s case to rescind his 7 home loan based on plaintiff’s argument that the loan was not backed by legal money and noting 8 that his “arguments and claims [were] absurd” and “smack[ed] of bad faith”); Tuttle v. Chase 9 Home Finance, LLC, 2008 WL 4919263, *3-4 (D. Utah Nov. 17, 2008); Sneed v. Chase Home 10 Finance, LLC, 2007 WL 1851674, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2007); Carrington v. Federal 11 Nat’l Mortgage Assoc., 2005 WL 3216226, at *2-3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 29, 2005). 12 Plaintiff’s claims are based on theories that have been rejected by courts around the 13 country and have no basis in the law. It is evident that at the time plaintiff accepted the 14 mortgage and home equity loan, she did not have the same intense belief that Federal Reserve 15 notes were worthless and the United States was bankrupt. Instead, she accepted the loans and 16 has enjoyed use of the “worthless money” since 2004. 17 Plaintiff also attempts to argue a RICO violation. The elements of a civil RICO claim 18 include: “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity 19 (known as ‘predicate acts’) (5) causing injury to plaintiff’s ‘business or property.’” Living 20 Designs, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff 21 must allege that defendants committed at least two of the enumerated predicate acts to establish a 22 RICO violation. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). 23 Plaintiff’s RICO claim fails because she does not identify any substantive violation of 24 RICO or describe the predicate acts upon which her RICO claim is based. The acts plaintiff 25 describe were an ordinary loan transaction, thus plaintiff’s RICO claim must be dismissed. 26 //// 5 1 Even if all the allegations as to all of the claims in plaintiff’s complaint were accepted as 2 true and were construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the complaint fails to state a 3 claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Moreover, the court cannot discern any manner by 4 which plaintiff could cure the defects discussed above. It would be futile to grant plaintiff leave 5 to amend, thus the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 6 7 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dckt. Nos. 8, 13, be granted without leave to amend and this case be closed. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 11 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 12 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 13 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 14 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: January 12, 2010. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6

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.