Barefield v. HSBC Mortg. Servs.
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-0613 JLT CDB |
| Decision Date | 15 March 2023 |
| Parties | DEBRA BAREFIELD, Plaintiff, v. HSBC MORTAGE SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
(DOCS. 31, 33 AND 39)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
(DOC. 46)
Debra Barefield asserts she was the owner of a Deed of Trust of property located in Bakersfield, California, and the administrator of the estate of Thomas W. Hatch. She contends the defendants engaged in unlawful actions related to a foreclosure sale of her home, wrongfully evicted her, and are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Barefield also brings a claim for quiet title and requests a subsequent Grant Deed be cancelled. (Doc. 17.)
Defendants seek dismissal of all claims in the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and Barefield fails to allege facts sufficient to support her claims. (See Docs. 31, 33, 39.) Barefield opposes dismissal of the action. (Docs. 44, 45.) However, Barefield did not oppose the motion filed by Nickolas Tenhaeff and Lynae Tenhaeff.[1] The Court finds the matters suitable for decision without oral arguments, and no hearing date will be set pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons set forth below, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and the First Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.
Barefield alleges decedent Thomas Hatch “purchased a single-family residence” located at 11301 Darlington Avenue in Bakersfield, California on August 26, 2005 (“the Property”). (Doc. 17 at 5, ¶ 4.) Barefield asserts that “[a]t the time of securing the loan,” she and Hatch went together to Castle Home Loans. (Id., ¶ 21.) She contends the loan officers suggested the loan be put in Hatch's name only “because he had a higher income and higher credit score at the time.” (Id., ¶ 22.) Barefield alleges that she and Hatch “agreed that once the loan went through, Hatch would add Plaintiff's name to the title.” (Id. at 5, ¶ 23.) Barefield asserts she used “own individual funds to make the down payment” and “made all the payments ... with her own money” for the Property. (Id. at 5, ¶¶ 25-26.) She alleges that when Hatch died on June 1, 2014, the Property “was part of a Trust conveyed to [her].” (Id. at ¶ 27.)
According to Barefield, defendant HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. “assigned the underlying mortgage to U.S. Bank Trust, N.A” on October 23, 2017. (Doc. 17 at 6, ¶ 28.) Barefield asserts that “US Bank acted as Trustee for Defendant LSF10 Master Participation Trust.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 9.)
On March 12, 2018, Barfield executed a Grant Deed, “as Administrator of the Estate of Thomas W. Hatch,” granting ownership to herself “as a single woman.” (Doc. 17 at 17; see also id. at 5, ¶ 29.) The document was recorded on March 13, 2018. (Id. at 17.) Barefield contends the “ownership of the subject property was conveyed to Plaintiff.” (Id. at 5, ¶ 29.) She asserts she was “at all material times, a bona fide owner of the subject property.” (Id., ¶ 30.)
On September 26, 2018, Summit Management Company “prepared and recorded a Trustee's Deed upon Sale.” (Doc. 17 at 5, ¶ 32; see also id. at 20.) The Deed Upon Sale indicated the Property title was transferred to U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for the LSF10 Master Participation Trust, and the amount of unpaid debt-and the amount paid at the trustee sale- was $953,964.54. (Id. at 20; see id. at 5, ¶ 33.) Barefield contends a notice of default was never sent to the Estate of Hatch. (Id., ¶ 34.) Barefield also asserts that “[n]o loan modification or other foreclosure alternate resolution option was ever offered to the Estate of Hatch or any other interest[ed] party to the subject property.” (Id.) Barefield contends that on January 23, 2019, Summit filed an unlawful detainer action against
Barefield in Kern County Superior Court.[2] (Doc. 17 at 9, ¶ 53.) According to Barefield, “Summit knew, or should have known,” that “their title was defective” and “had not been perfected.” (Id., ¶¶ 59-60.) On February 6, 2020, Barefield was evicted from the Property. (Id. at 6, ¶ 37; see also id. at 9, ¶ 57.) She asserted “[t]he eviction was in retaliation for exercising her legal rights under the Hatch Trust.” (Id.) According to Barefield, “Summit knew, or should have known,” that “their title was defective” and “had not been perfected.” (Id. at 9, ¶¶ 59-60.)
On December 24, 2020, the Property was sold to defendants Nickolas Tenhaeff and Lynae Tenhaeff. (Doc. 17 at 3, ¶¶ 12-13; id. at 6, ¶ 36.) The Grant Deed indicates legal ownership of the Property was transferred from U.S. Bank, as Trustee for LSF10 to the Tenhaeffs. (Id. at 13, ¶ 83.) Barefield asserts that both Prominent Escrow Service and Chicago Title Company “recorded the Grant Deed December 24, 2020.” (Id. at 3-4, ¶¶ 14, 15.)
According to Barefield, all the “[d]efendants engaged in a systematic and calculated campaign to damage [her] reputation in the neighborhood where she had raised her children and where she conducted her everyday business.” (Doc. 17 at 10, ¶ 69.) She asserts, “Defendants made false statements about Plaintiff to her neighbors in an effort to cause harm, embarrassment, shame, and emotional pain.” (Id. at 11, ¶ 70.) Barefield contends that the “[d]efendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous” and as a result of their actions, she “has been emotionally damaged.” (Id., ¶¶ 71, 73.)
On April 9, 2021, Barefield initiated this action by filing a complaint with representation by counsel, Marc Applbaum. (Doc. 1.) On April 27, 2021, Plaintiff's attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, reporting he believed Barefield “used his services to advance a course of conduct that [counsel] reasonably believes is fraudulent.” (Doc. 11 at 2.) The Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw on May 17, 2021. (Doc. 13.) At that time, the Court observed the matter had “a striking similarity” to prior actions filed by Barefield: Barefield v. HSBC Holdings, PLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-527-LJO-JLT and Barefield v. HSBC Holdings, PLC, et. al., Case No. 18-cv-1442-LJO-JLT. Thus, the Court urged Barefield “to consider whether a fair reading of her complaint in conjunction with the previous two she has filed, could lead to the reasonable conclusion that this litigation is frivolous and intended for harassment purposes.” (Id. at 2-3, n.1.)
On August 2, 2021, Barefield filed her First Amended Complaint, now proceeding pro se in the matter. (Doc. 17.) In the FAC, Barefield identifies the following causes of action: (1) violation of civil rights/property interest via failure to provide notice under Cal. Civ. Code § 2924b against U.S. Bank and LSF10 Master Participation Trust[3]; (2) “violation of [her] civil rights via wrongful and retaliatory eviction” against Summit Management Company; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Summit, HSBC Mortgage Services, U.S. Bank Trust, LSF10 Master Participation Trust, Caliber Home Loans, Nickolas Tenhaeff, Lynae Tenhaeff, Prominent Escrow Service, and Chicago Title Company[4]; (4) quiet title; and (5) cancellation of the Grant Deed dated December 24, 2020 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3412. (Id. at 6-13.)
On September 20, 2021, motions to dismiss were filed by Chicago Title Company (Doc. 31) as well as Caliber Home Loans; Summit; and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF10 Master Participation Trust (Doc. 33). Barefield opposed both motions on October 8, 2021. (Docs. 44, 45.) Barefield also asserted the responsive pleading by U.S. Bank Trust was untimely and moved to strike the motion. (Doc. 46.) The Tenhaeffs also filed a motion to dismiss, which Barefield has not opposed. (See Docs. 39-40, 52.)
Fed. R. Evid. 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of any facts (1) “generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction” or (2) that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993).
The Court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(c).
Defendants Caliber Home Loans, Inc.; Summit Management Company, LLC; and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF10 Master Participation Trust request the Court take judicial notice of the following documents[5]:
To continue reading
Request your trial