Ruiz v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc.
Decision Date | 24 July 2012 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. CV F 12-0878 LJO BAM |
Parties | FLORIDA RUIZ, Plaintiff, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Several defendants1 seek to dismiss as legally barred and lacking merit plaintiff Florida Ruiz' ("Ms. Ruiz'") claims to challenge foreclosure of her Bakersfield property ("property"). Ms. Ruiz responds that defendants' wrongful conduct precludes foreclosure of her property. This Court considered defendants' F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the record without a hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons discussed below, this Court DISMISSES this action against defendants.
On April 1, 2007, Mr. Ruiz obtained from SunTrust a $189,592 loan secured by a deed of trust ("first DOT") on the property and which was recorded on April 13, 2007.3 The first DOT identifies SunTrust as lender and MERS as nominee of SunTrust and SunTrust's successors and assigns and as beneficiary under the deed of trust.
Also on April 1, 2007, Ms. Ruiz obtained a second $47,398 loan secured by a second deed of trust on the property and which was also recorded on April 13, 2007. That deed of trust identifies SunTrust as lender and MERS as nominee of SunTrust and SunTrust's successors and assigns and beneficiary under the deed of trust.
After Ms. Ruiz defaulted, Recontrust Company ("Recontrust") recorded a notice of default and election to sell under deed of trust on May 15, 2009. After Ms. Ruiz failed to cure her default, Recontrust recorded a notice of trustee's sale on January 12, 2010. The property was sold at foreclosure on March 4, 2010, and Recontrust recorded a trustee's deed upon sale on March 12, 2010.
The foreclosure sale was rescinded, and a notice of rescission of trustee's deed upon sale was recorded on December 8, 2011.
By an August 18, 2011 assignment of deed of trust, MERS assigned to SunTrust all beneficial interest under the first DOT. The assignment of deed of trust was recorded on September 2, 2011 and is signed by MERS Vice President Doyle Mitchell ("Mr. Mitchell").
On September 16, 2011, the Wolf Law Firm recorded a second notice of default and election to sell under deed of trust for the property. The Wolf Law Firm substituted as trustee under the first DOT on September 30, 2011. The substitution of trustee was recorded on February 15, 2012. The Wolf Law Firm caused a notice of trustee's sale of the property to be recorded on February 15, 2012.
Prior to removal to this Court, Ms. Ruiz filed her original complaint in state court on February 22, 2012. Ms. Ruiz proceeds on her FAC, filed on May 14, 2012, to challenge SunTrust's authority "to initiate and complete foreclosure" in that SunTrust "is neither the Promissory Note Holder, nor the actual Beneficiary of the Deed of Trust." The FAC alleges that SunTrust "cannot show proper receipt, possession, transfer, negotiations, assignment and ownership of the borrowers' Promissory Note and Deed of Trust." The FAC continues that "none of the parties to neither the securitization transaction, nor any of the Defendants in this case, hold a perfected and secured claim in the Property." The FAC alleges claims of wrongful foreclosure, fraud, slander of title, quiet title and California statutory violations. The claims will be discussed in greater detail below.
Defendants characterize the FAC's claims as lacking merit to warrant dismissal.
Scheurer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683 (1974); Gilligan v. Jamco Development Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997). A F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper where there is either a "lack of a cognizable legal theory" or "the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990); Graehling v. Village of Lombard, Ill., 58 F.3d 295, 297 (7th Cir. 1995). A F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion "tests the legal sufficiency of a claim." Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
In addressing dismissal, a court must: (1) construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; (2) accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true; and (3) determine whether plaintiff can prove any set of facts to support a claim that would merit relief. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-338 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, a court is not required "to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). A court "need notassume the truth of legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations," U.S. ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643, n. 2 (9th Cir.1986), and must not "assume that the [plaintiff] can prove facts that it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated . . . laws in ways that have not been alleged." Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526, 103 S.Ct. 897 (1983). A court need not permit an attempt to amend if "it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by an amendment." Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005).
A plaintiff is obliged "to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' [which] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554,127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, a court "will dismiss any claim that, even when construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, fails to plead sufficiently all required elements of a cause of action." Student Loan Marketing Ass'n v. Hanes, 181 F.R.D. 629, 634 (S.D. Cal. 1998). In practice, a complaint "must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562, 127 S.Ct. at 1969 (quoting Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984)).
In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937,1949 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court explained:
. . . a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." . . . A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. . . . The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. (Citations omitted.)
After discussing Iqbal, the Ninth Circuit summarized: "In sum, for a complaint to survive [dismissal], the non-conclusory 'factual content,' and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. at 1949).
The U.S. Supreme Court applies a "two-prong approach" to address dismissal:
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-1950.
Moreover, a court may consider exhibits submitted with the complaint. Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987);Van Winkle v. Allstate Ins. Co., 290 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1162, n. 2 (C.D. Cal. 2003). A "court may consider evidence on which the complaint 'necessarily relies' if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion." Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). A court may treat such a document as "part of the complaint, and thus may assume that its contents are true for purposes of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.2003). Such consideration prevents "plaintiffs from surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting reference to documents upon which their claims are based."...
To continue reading
Request your trial