Reyna v. PNC Bank, N.A.

• Decision Date: 08 May 2020
• Docket Number: CIV. NO. 19-00248 LEK-RT
• Parties: HERMA BARBARA MEDINA REYNA, Plaintiff, v. PNC BANK, N.A.; ET AL., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

HERMA BARBARA MEDINA REYNA, Plaintiff, v. PNC BANK, N.A.; ET AL., Defendants.

CIV. NO. 19-00248 LEK-RT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII

May 8, 2020

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM INC.'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

This matter arises out of the foreclosure of real property owned by pro se Plaintiff Herma Barbara Medina Reyna ("Plaintiff" or "Reyna") in Makawao, Maui County, State of Hawai`i ("the Subject Property"). See Amended Complaint, filed 7/12/19 (dkt. no. 35), at ¶¶ 8, 23. Plaintiff filed her action against several defendants - Defendants PNC Bank, N.A. ("PNC"); Wilmington Trust, National Association, Not in Its Individual Capacity But Solely as a Trustee under the Greenwich Investors XL Pass-Through Agreement Dated as of March 1, 2012 ("Wilmington"); Mortgage Electronic Registration Stems, Inc. ("MERS"); and all unknow persons claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the Subject Property adverse to Plaintiff's title thereto ("Unknown Interest Defendants" and, all collectively, "Defendants"). [Id. at ¶¶ 1- 4.] To date, only PNC and MERS have filed answers to the Amended Complaint. See MERS's answer to the Amended Complaint, filed 7/29/19 (dkt. no. 39); PNC's answer to the Amended Complaint, filed 7/29/19 (dkt. no. 40). No other parties have filed a response or otherwise appeared.

PNC and MERS, in their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed on November 4, 2019 ("Motion"), seek dismissal of all claims asserted against them on the basis that Plaintiff's claims are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine¹ and by the res judicata doctrine, and because Plaintiff fails to state any viable claims. See Mem. in Supp. of Motion (dkt. no. 44-1) at 1. They further submit that any amendment would be futile to cure any defects in the Amended Complaint, and thus dismissal must be with prejudice. On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document that is construed as her memorandum in opposition to the Motion ("Memorandum in Opposition"), and PNC and MERS filed their reply in support of the Motion ("Reply") on January 10, 2020. [Dkt. nos. 48, 53.] Plaintiff filed a document that this Court ruled will be considered as Plaintiff's response to the Reply ("Surreply"). [Surreply,filed 1/21/20 (dkt. no. 54); Minute Order, filed 1/23/20 (dkt. no. 55).]

For the reasons set forth below, all of Plaintiff's claims, except for Count II, Count XII, and Count XIII, are dismissed with prejudice as to both PNC and MERS. Count II is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend by no later than June 10, 2020 as to PNC and MERS; Counts XII and XIII are dismissed with prejudice as to MERS only and without prejudice and with leave to amend by no later than June 10, 2020 as to PNC. Failure to file a second amended complaint by that deadline will result in dismissal of the remaining claims with prejudice.

BACKGROUND

The procedural background of the instant case involves Plaintiff's original Complaint, [filed on 5/13/19 (dkt. no. 1),] which was superseded by her Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges the following claims: Negligence against the Foreclosing Defendants ("Count I");² Fraud Against the Foreclosing Defendants ("Count II"); Fraud against all Defendants ("Count III"); a claim seeking to set aside the commissioner's sale of the Subject Property ("Count IV"); aclaim against the Foreclosing Defendants seeking to void or cancel the commissioner's Deed upon Contingent Sale ("Count V"); a claim against the Foreclosing Defendants seeking to void or cancel the Assignment of Deed of Trust ("Count VI"); wrongful foreclosure against the Foreclosing Defendants ("Count VII"); breach of contract against the Foreclosing Defendants ("Count VIII"); breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the Foreclosing Defendants ("Count IX"); unjust enrichment against the Foreclosing Defendants ("Count XI"); violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., against the Foreclosing Defendants ("Count XII"); quiet title as to PNC and the Unknown Interest Defendants ("Count XII"); slander of title against the Foreclosing Defendants ("Count XIII"); and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization ("RICO") Act ("Count XIV"). [Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 27-107.]

The factual background of this matter begins with Plaintiff's loan from Meridian Financial Network Inc. ("Meridian") on May 21, 2007, for which "Plaintiff made, executed, and delivered to MERS, as nominee for Meridian, . . . a mortgage recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances . . . on May 30, 2007" ("Mortgage"). [Mem. in Supp. of Motion at 2; Motion, Decl. of Ryan B. Kasten ("Kasten Decl."), Exh. 1 (Mortgage).] The mortgage encumbered the Subject Property.[Kasten Decl., Exh. 1.] Subsequently, MERS assigned the Mortgage to PNC, and this assignment was recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances on July 13, 2011. [Id., Exh. 2 (Assignment of Mortgage ("Assignment")).]. A foreclosure action was instituted by PNC against Reyna on April 29, 2015 in a state circuit court ("Foreclosure Action"),³ and Reyna filed her response on September 16, 2016. [Id., Exh. 3 (Reyna's answer to the amended complaint in the Foreclosure Action).] Ultimately, on July 20, 2017, the state court issued: an order granting summary judgment in favor of PNC, with an interlocutory decree of foreclosure ("Foreclosure Decision"); and a judgment pursuant thereto ("Foreclosure Judgment"). [Id., Exh. 4 (Foreclosure Decision), Exh. 5 (Foreclosure Judgment).] Reyna filed an appeal, which was dismissed as untimely. See PNC Bank, N.A. v. Reyna, NO. CAAP-18-0000022, 2018 WL 3062466 (Hawai`i Ct. App. June 21, 2018), recon. denied, 2018 WL 3408082 (July 13, 2018). Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant action in this district court.

STANDARDS

I. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)

Rule 12(c) states: "After the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment onthe pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The allegations of the nonmoving party are accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party that have been denied are assumed to be false. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990). If, when the pleadings are so construed, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Rule 12(c) motion will be granted. Rubin v. United States, 904 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Fajardo v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999)). The standards applicable to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion also apply to a Rule 12(c) motion because the two motions are "functionally identical." Gregg v. Hawai`i, Dep't of Pub. Safety, 870 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Thus, "[a]s with a motion to dismiss, a claim may survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings if the complaint 'contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Adon Constr. Inc. v. Renesola Am. Inc., CIVIL NO. 16-00568 JAO-WRP, 2019 WL 2236073, at *2 (D. Hawai`i May 23, 2019) (some alterations in Adon Constr.) (some internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

While taking account of material outside of the complaint can convert the motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment, a court may take judicialnotice of "matters of public record" pursuant to Rule 201, Federal Rules of Evidence, without converting the motion.⁴ See Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing judicial notice in the context of a motion to dismiss), cert. denied sub nom., Hagan v. Khoja, 139 S. Ct. 2615 (2019). However, a court cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts within those public records. Id.

A complaint need not include detailed facts to survive dismissal. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). However, in providing grounds for relief, a plaintiff must do more than recite the formulaic elements of a cause of action. See id.; see also McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988) ("[C]onclusory allegations without more are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." (citation omitted)).

II. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that, "[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." This district court has set forth the type of particularity required:

In their pleadings, Plaintiffs must include the time, place, and nature of the alleged fraud; "mere conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient" to satisfy this requirement. [In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1547-48 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc)] (citation and quotation signals omitted).[⁵] Where there are multiple defendants, Plaintiffs cannot "lump multiple defendants together" and instead must "differentiate their allegations [between defendants]." Destfino v. Kennedy, 630 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). However, "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); see alsoIn re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d at 1547 ("We conclude that plaintiffs may aver scienter . . . simply by saying that scienter existed."); Walling v. Beverly Enter., 476 F.2d 393, 397 (9th Cir. 1973) (Rule 9(b) "only requires the identification of the circumstances constituting fraud so that the defendant can prepare an adequate answer from the allegations." (citations omitted)).

Menashe v. Bank of New York, 850 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1129 (D. Hawai`i 2012) (some alterations in Menashe).

III. Pro Se Status

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and therefore her Amended Complaint and other filings must be construed...