Jose R. Solano v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, Western Progressive, LLC, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-HE3, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California grants defendants’ request for judicial notice and motion to dismiss, and denies plaintiff’s motion to consolidate. The court dismisses Jose R. Solano’s claims arising from an alleged fraudulent and wrongful foreclosure, including claims under the FDCPA, FHA, RICO, and other state and federal laws. The court concludes that several claims were improperly added without leave to amend, while other claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations or inadequately pleaded.

Holdings

1. The court may judicially notice undisputed matters of public record, including the existence and contents of recorded documents and court records, but may not judicially notice disputed factual assertions contained in those records as true.
2. A plaintiff may not add entirely new claims in an amended complaint when the court granted leave only to cure deficiencies in specified existing claims; claims added without the required leave may be dismissed.
3. Solano's foreclosure-related claims, including claims predicated on alleged fraud in the assignment, foreclosure notices, foreclosure sale, and related instruments, were time-barred because he knew or should have known of defendants' asserted interests and foreclosure intentions years before filing suit.
4. Solano's civil RICO claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations because he knew or should have known of the injury underlying the claim more than four years before filing suit.
5. The FDCPA claims based on nonjudicial foreclosure failed because enforcement of a security interest through nonjudicial foreclosure is not an attempt to collect money from the debtor within the relevant FDCPA framework. The claims based on failure to disclose or validate the debt also failed because the attached debt-validation notice refuted the allegations and Solano did not allege that he disputed the debt as required.
6. Solano failed to state an FHA claim because his allegations did not provide sufficient factual detail under Rule 8 and did not plausibly allege that defendants acted because of his race or national origin.
7. Consolidation was unwarranted because the proposed related action had already been dismissed without leave to amend and judgment had been entered, while this action was also being dismissed against the served defendants.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could take judicial notice of the defendants' public-record exhibits and, if so, whether judicial notice extended to the truth of disputed facts in those records.
2. Whether claims newly added to the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend should be dismissed.
3. Whether Solano's foreclosure-related and related claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
4. Whether the FDCPA claims based on nonjudicial foreclosure and alleged failures to validate or disclose the debt stated a claim.
5. Whether the FHA claim adequately pleaded discrimination and was otherwise timely.
6. Whether consolidation was appropriate where the other action had been dismissed and judgment had been entered.

Disposition

dismissed