Gold v. National Default Servicing Corporation

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted defendants’ motions to dismiss Michelle Gold’s First Amended Complaint and dismissed it with prejudice. The court also denied the Deed Defendants’ request for judicial notice as duplicative and granted the Bird Rock Defendants’ request for judicial notice. The claims concerned alleged defects in a mortgage foreclosure, fraudulent transfer, RESPA violations, and quiet title.

Holdings

1. The court may consider documents attached to or incorporated into the complaint and matters of judicial notice when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court granted the Bird Rock Defendants' request because the documents were public records and denied the Deed Defendants' duplicative request.
2. A plaintiff who fails to address arguments raised in a motion to dismiss may be deemed to have abandoned the challenged claims, and an untimely opposition may be disregarded where the circumstances do not warrant leniency.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a claim for cancellation of written instruments because she did not plead fraud with particularity, did not show that the instruments were void or voidable, and did not allege serious injury caused by leaving the instruments outstanding.
4. Plaintiff failed to state a fraudulent-transfer claim because the allegations did not satisfy Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement and her theory that Chase alone had authority to authorize the foreclosure lacked evidentiary support.
5. Plaintiff failed to state a RESPA section 2605 claim because the alleged inquiries either did not concern loan servicing or were not pleaded with sufficient facts showing that they were qualified written requests, and Plaintiff did not plead damages caused by unanswered requests.
6. Plaintiff failed to state a quiet-title claim because she did not allege that she satisfied her obligations under the deed of trust or had the present ability to tender the loan proceeds, and she did not show that Defendants lacked authority to foreclose.
7. The claims against the Bird Rock Defendants were properly dismissed because Plaintiff abandoned them by failing to respond to the motion, failed to state any claim on the merits, and appeared to lack standing to challenge title after transferring her interest in the property.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could take judicial notice of the public records and bankruptcy documents submitted by Defendants without converting the Rule 12(b)(6) motions into motions for summary judgment.
2. Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded cancellation of written instruments and fraud under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b) and California Civil Code section 3412.
3. Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded a fraudulent-transfer claim.
4. Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded a violation of RESPA section 2605 against the loan servicer and other defendants.
5. Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded a quiet-title claim, including that she had satisfied her obligations or had the present ability to tender the loan proceeds.
6. Whether Plaintiff's claims against the Bird Rock Defendants failed because of abandonment, failure to state a claim, or lack of standing.

Disposition

dismissed