Pamela Banse v. Statebridge Company, LLC, et al.

Summary

This is an order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California addressing Defendants Statebridge Company, LLC and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSP’s motion to dismiss Pamela Banse’s First Amended Complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion and granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ request for judicial notice. The order dismissed the third-party-beneficiary contract claim without leave to amend, dismissed several other claims with leave to amend, and allowed the claim under 12 C.F.R. § 226.5 to proceed.

Holdings

1. Banse failed to state a breach-of-contract claim against Statebridge because she did not adequately allege that she was an intended third-party beneficiary of the servicing agreement.
2. Banse failed to state an implied-covenant claim because she did not identify the specific contractual provision that Wilmington allegedly frustrated.
3. Banse failed to state an FDCPA claim because she did not sufficiently allege that charging interest on a charged-off loan without sending periodic statements violated the FDCPA.
4. The Rosenthal Act claim failed because Banse failed to state the underlying FDCPA claim on which it was based.
5. Banse sufficiently alleged that Wilmington violated 12 C.F.R. § 226.5 by failing to provide periodic statements.
6. Banse sufficiently stated a TILA claim by alleging that Wilmington failed to transmit required periodic statements for more than fifteen years.
7. Banse adequately alleged UCL claims under both the unlawful and unfair prongs.
8. The court granted judicial notice of officially recorded documents and denied judicial notice of unrecorded documents that were not proper subjects of judicial notice or did not contain undisputed facts on which the complaint relied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Banse adequately alleged that she was an intended third-party beneficiary of the loan-servicing agreement and could sue Statebridge for breach of contract.
2. Whether Banse adequately alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Wilmington.
3. Whether Banse adequately alleged that Statebridge violated the FDCPA by charging interest and fees on a charged-off loan without sending periodic statements.
4. Whether the Rosenthal Act claim failed because the alleged FDCPA violation was inadequately pleaded.
5. Whether Banse adequately alleged a violation of 12 C.F.R. § 226.5 based on the failure to provide periodic statements.
6. Whether Banse adequately alleged a TILA violation based on the failure to provide periodic statements.
7. Whether Banse adequately alleged standing and an unfair or unlawful practice under California's UCL.
8. Whether the court should take judicial notice of the documents submitted by Defendants.

Disposition

other