Alcarmen v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank
| Decision Date | 08 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 13-CV-1575 YGR |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | JOEL P. ALCARMEN, ALMA S. VALDEZ, Plaintiffs, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK F/K/A WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, et al., Defendants. |
Pro se plaintiffs Joel P. Alcarmen and Alma S. Valdez filed this wrongful foreclosure case on March 6, 2013 in the California Superior Court for Alameda County. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1 ("Complaint").) Plaintiffs name as defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (sued as J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, a national association f/k/a Washington Mutual Bank) (herein, "Chase"); California Reconveyance Company; and Citibank, N.A., as Trustee for WaMu Series 2007-HE3 Trust (herein, "Citibank") (sued as Long Beach Mortgage Company, Long Beach Securities Corporation, Washington Mutual Loan Trust 2006-HE3, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company) (collectively, "Defendants"). The Complaint sets forth two claims based on federal law (, alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ("RESPA")) and nine claims based on California state law. This Court has removal jurisdictionover the federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. (Dkt. No. 1; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367, 1441.)
Now before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all counts. (Dkt. No. 26 ("Motion").) Having considered the record and the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is GRANTED.1 A separate Judgment shall issue.
The evidentiary record in this case consists of recorded instruments and judicial opinions, all but one of which are contained in Defendants' unopposed Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 26-2 ("RJN")). Defendants' RJN is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (). As cited below, plaintiffs proffer as exhibits to their declarations some though not all of the recorded instruments proffered by Defendants.
Plaintiffs also proffer a purported "Mortgage Loan Chain of Title Report" ostensibly prepared by an entity called "Processing Center." (Dkt. No. 35 ("Alcarmen Decl."), Ex. F.)2 This seventeen-page document is inadmissible as evidence for three reasons. First, though it is attached to plaintiffs' opposition brief, neither plaintiff's declaration authenticates it. Fed. R. Evid. 901; Civ. L.R. 7-5. Second, the document is replete with inadmissible speculation lacking in foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 602; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Third, the document is inadmissible to the extent it contains legal arguments and lay opinions, of which it contains many. (Alcarmen Decl., Ex. F at 11-13.) The "Mortgage Loan Chain of Title Report" is not evidence and plays no part in the Court's determination of the Motion.
On March 19, 2007, Alcarmen obtained a loan for $603,000 from Washington Mutual Bank ("Washington Mutual"), secured by the subject property in Hayward, California. (RJN, Ex. A.) The deed of trust to the property names Washington Mutual as the lender and beneficiary and Ticor Title Company as the Trustee. (Id.) On May 1, 2007, the subject loan was securitized by being placed into the WaMu Series 2007-HE3 Trust. (Id., Ex. B.) The terms of the pooling and services agreement for that trust indicate Washington Mutual remained the servicer of the loan. (Id.)
On November 1, 2007, a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust ("Notice of Default") in connection with the deed of trust was recorded. The Notice of Default reflects that the subject loan was $17,953.32 in arrears. (Id.) On February 6, 2008, a Notice of Trustee's Sale in connection with the deed of trust was recorded as instrument number 2008049357.3 (RJN, Ex. D; Alcarmen Decl., Ex. B.) On July 2, 2008, the property was sold to Citibank in its capacity as trustee for the WaMu Series 2007-HE3 Trust, as reflected by a Trustee's Deed Upon Sale recorded July 9, 2008 as instrument number 2008210844. (RJN, Ex. F; Alcarmen Decl., Ex. C.) Also on July 9, 2008, an Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded as instrument number 2008210843. (RJN, Ex. E.) Under the assignment, Washington Mutual assigned to Citibank, in the latter's role as trustee for the WaMu Series 2007-HE3 Trust, all of Washington Mutual's beneficial interest in the deed of trust. (Id.)
On September 25, 2008, pursuant to a Purchase and Assumption Agreement, Chase acquired certain assets and liabilities of Washington Mutual from the FDIC acting as receiver. (See RJN, Ex. G.) Among the assets and liabilities Chase acquired was Washington Mutual's interest in servicing the subject loan. (See id., Article III, § 3.1 ().)
On October 21, 2010, Alcarmen filed a civil complaint for damages in Alameda County Superior Court, case number HG10542862. (RJN, Ex. L.) The state court action named as defendants Chase, California Reconveyance, and Citibank—all defendants in this case—as well asfifty Does. (Id.) On December 1, 2010, defendants removed to this Court. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 10-cv-05441-JSW, Dkt. No. 1.) The case ultimately came before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White. (Id., Dkt. No. 13.) On March 30, 2011, Judge White granted a motion to dismiss Alcarmen's TILA and RESPA claims and dismissed those claims with prejudice. (RJN, Ex. M.) He then remanded to Alameda County Superior Court Alcarmen's remaining twenty-two state-law causes of action. (Id.)
On August 16, 2011, now litigating once more in state court, Alcarmen filed a First Amended Complaint that reduced the causes of action to nine. (RJN, Ex. N.) Chase and California Reconveyance demurred and, on February 14, 2012, the Superior Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to four causes of action, specifically, concealment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and injunctive relief. (RJN, Ex. O.) Notably, the Superior Court's reason for sustaining the demurrer to those causes of action was res judicata: it ruled that "those four causes of action all involve the alleged injuries to Plaintiff that were adjudicated and dismissed in Alameda Case No. RG08-424411" and therefore were precluded. (Id.)4 The court granted Alcarmen leave to amend his other claims. (Id.)
On February 21, 2012, Alcarmen filed a Second Amended Complaint. (RJN, Ex. P.)
On March 2, 2012, the trustee's sale of July 2, 2008 was rescinded, notice of which was recorded as instrument number 2012075488. (RJN, Ex. H; Alcarmen Decl., Ex. D.) The notice of rescission states that the trustee's sale was "conducted through inadvertence and oversight." (Id.)
Roughly four months later, on July 18, 2012, another Notice of Trustee's Sale of the subject property was recorded as instrument number 2012229503. (RJN, Ex. I.) The Notice of Trustee's Sale stated that Alcarmen was in default and the subject property would be sold at public auction on August 9, 2012. (Id.)
The auction of the subject property scheduled for August 9, 2012 (RJN, Ex. I) apparently did not occur, for, on August 13, 2012, Alcarmen filed an interspousal grant deed as instrument number 2012264241. (RJN, Ex. J.) The interspousal grant deed changed the subject property from Alcarmen's separate marital property to community property of Alcarmen and Valdez. (Id.)
On August 15, 2012, the Superior Court sustained a demurrer to Alcarmen's Second Amended Complaint and dismissed without leave to amend his five remaining causes of action: violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, quiet title, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (RJN, Ex. Q.)
On November 19, 2012, a Notice of Trustee's Sale of the subject property was recorded as instrument number 2012386928. (Alcarmen Decl., Ex. E.) The Notice of Trustee's Sale stated that Alcarmen was in default—it does not mention Valdez or the interspousal assignment—and the subject property would be sold at public auction on December 11, 2012. (Id.) The record does not reflect whether that sale took place.
Plaintiffs filed this action in Alameda County Superior Court on March 6, 2013. The instant Complaint asserts eleven causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; (2) contractual breach of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violations of TILA; (4) violations of RESPA; (5) rescission; (6) fraud; (7) unfair and deceptive acts and practices; (8) breach of fiduciary duty; (9) unconscionability; (10) quiet title; and (11) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On November 20, 2013, Defendants filed the Motion now at bar. On January 2, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a document styled as an opposition to Defendant's summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 30.) On January 16, 2014, the Court issued an Order observing that plaintiffs' brief suffered from "technical and other deficiencies" that were "severe enough that Plaintiffs have yet to participate meaningfully in the summary judgment process." (Dkt. No. 31 at 2.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(4), the Court struck the brief, issued a Rand5 notice apprising plaintiffs of what is required to oppose a motion for summary judgment in federal court, referred them to the Court's Legal Help Center, and ordered plaintiffs to file an amended opposition brief by February 14, 2014. (Id. at 2-3.)
Plaintiffs' deadline passed without plaintiffs filing anything. The Court ordered plaintiffs to show their continued intent to prosecute their case by filing an amended opposition brief by March 3, 2014. (Dkt. No. 34.) The Court also vacated oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b...
To continue reading
Request your trial