:

.
*
<
i

ENTERED sEavt:n ()
! j . rggllsgt/l
ugTf
ës()FIlgtygjy

m
I
( 2 /lj 1 g a lj

.co
.

3
g tytjjyyytyy rysyjyjj;yrzyjjyy
i 4 '
I;Is'ralc'
rOFNc vm l)A
I BY; .- I
lspLl
n

ud
5 '
6 UNITED sTATES m sTm c'r COIJRT :
.

ra
1 7 -
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 1
I .. .

8 !
.

eF
PAUL SIFRE, )
9 )
PIaintiff, )
l0 ) 3:10-cv-00572-RCJ-VPC
11
vs.
W ELLSFARGO BANK,
ur
)
)
) ORDER
los
12 )
Defendant. )
13 ) f
ec

14 Thiscase arisesoutofthe foreclosure of Plaintitr sm ortgage. The Courtpreviously

l5 enteredatemporaryrestrainingorderandsetapreIim inaryinjunctionhearing,buttheorder
or

l6 expired and the Courtvacated the hearing when Plaintifffailed to serve Defendantw ith the
l7 notice ofthe hearing w ithin the tim e ordered by the Court. Plaintiffhasnow served VtW ells .
F

-VPC Sifre v. Wells Fargo Bank Doc. 22

18 Fargo Bank C/O Trustees Corps,''in Sacram ento,California,and the Clerk has entered default -
op

19 againstDefendantbasedonthisservice.TheCourtdeniedamotionforpreliminal'
y injunction,
1
20 and Defendanthas now m oved to dism iss.
St

21 1. FAC TS AND PRO CED UR AL H ISTO R Y

w.

22 PlaintiffPaulSifre ownsrealproperty located at3660 Haw king Ct.,Sparks,N V 89436

23 (thestproperty''l.(Mot,1:1* 17,Sept.15,2010,ECFNo.2).1ThegravamenoftheComplaintis
ww

24
'Plaintiffattaches no evidence to hisresponse to the m otion to dism issconcerning any
25 foreclosure,justasheattachednoevidencetohismotionforpreliminaryinjunction,whichwas

Dockets.Justia.com
:
I .
p4

.
i
I
: 1 thatPlaintiffwasfraudulently induced into signing amortgage,although mostoftheComplaint

m
2 isageneralizedgrievanceagainstthemortgage industry.Plaintiffdoesnotallegeheisnotin

.co
3 defaultbutratherthatDefendantdoesnothave standing to foreclcse and fraudulently induced

4 him intoentering intothemortgagecontract.Healsoappearstopleadclaimsforunjust

(

ud
i 5 enrichm ent,quiettitle,breach offiduciary duty,negligence,breach ofthe im plied covenantof
6 good faith and fairdealing,intentionalintliction ofem otionaldistress,TILA ,HOEPA ,and

ra
t
i 8 II. LEGALSTANDARDS à

eF
!
9 FederalRuleofCivilProcedure8(a)(2)requiresdnlytta.shortandplainstatementofthe 1
i l0 claim showing thatthe pleaderis entitled to relief''in orderto tçgive the defendantfairnotice of
!
ur
II whatthe . . . claim isand thegrounds upon which itrests.,,Conley v.Gl.
bson,355 U.S.41,47
los
12 (1957).FederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6)mandatesthatacourtdismissacauseofaction
13 thatfailsto state a claim upon w hich reliefcan be granted. A motion to dism iss underRule

14 12(b)(6)teststhecomplaint'ssufficiency.SeeN.StarInt'lv.Ariz.Corp.Comm 'n,720 F.2d 578, 1

ec

15 58I(9thCir.I983).W henconsideringamotiontodismissunderRule I2(b)(6)forfailureto

or

16 state aclaim,dismissalisappropriateonlywhenthecomplaintdoesnotgivethedefendantfair '

1
17 notice ofa legally cognizableclaim and the groundson which itrests.See BeIIAtI.Corp.v.
F

l8 Twombly,550U.S.544,555(2007).Inconsideringwhetherthecomplaintissum cienttostatea
op

l9 claim ,the courtwilltake alIm aterialallegationsastrue and construe them in the Iightmost ;

20 favorabletotheplaintiff.SeeNLIndus.,Inc.v.Kaplan,792F.2d896,898(9thCir.1986).The
St

2 l court,however,is notrequired to acceptastrue allegationsthatare m erely conclusory,

w.

22 unwarranted deductionsoffact,orunreasonable inferences.See Sprewellv.Golden State

23
ww

24 essentially a reproduction ofthe Com plaint,to which there isalso no evidence attached.
Plaintifrhas attached only a Uniform SettlernentStaternentand TILA Disclesure to hisresponse
25 to the motion to dism iss.
Page 2 of 5

. j
I
I
'
i .'p d

m
1 1 Warriors,266F.3d979,988(9thCir.2001).A formulaicrecitationofacauseofactionwith
!
; 2 conclusory allegations is notsufficient;a plaintiffm ustplead factsshowing thata violation is '

.co
3 piausible,notjustpossible.Ashcrojtv.Iqbal,l29S.Ct.1937,1949(2009)(citingTwomblyv.
;
.
! 4 BellAtl.Corp.,550U.S.554,555(2007(
9.
i

ud
5 'çGenerally,a districtcourtm ay notconsiderany m aterialbeyond the pleadings in nlling

6 onaRulel2(b)(6)motion.However,materialwhichisproperlysubmittedaspartofthe
i

ra
l 7 com plaintmay be considered.''H alRoach Studios,Inc.v.Richard Feiner tf Co.,896 F.2d l542, '

8 l555n.19tgthcir.l990)(citationomitted).similarly,ttdocumentswhosecontentsarealleged '

eF
9 in a com plaintand w hose authenticity no party questions, butwhich are notphysically attached

! 10 tothepleading,maybeconsideredinrulingonaRule12(b)(6)motiontodismiss without

ur
ll convertingthemotiontodismissintoamotionforsummaryjudgment.Branchv.Tunnell,14 '
t!
los
! 12 F.3d449,454(9thCir.1994).Moreover,underFederalRuleofEvidence20l,acourtmaytake
I
'
l3 judicialnoticeofJ'mattersofpublicrecord.''Mackv.S.BayBeerDistribs.,Inc.,798F.2d I279, f
ec

14 I282(9thCir.l986).Otherwise,ifthedi
stri
ctcourtconsi
dersmaterialsoutsi
deofthe '
j
C
I5 pleadings,themotiontodismissisconvertedintoamotionforsummaryjudgment.SeeArpinv.
or

16 SantaClara Valley Transp.Agency,26lF.3d912,925(9thCir.200l).

l7 111. ANA LY SIS
F

ls A sto the claim sbased in fraud,Plaintiffspecifically disclaimed in his motion for

op

19 preliminaryinjunctionthatanyactorshadtheintentrequiredtoengageinfraudorconspiracy,
20 butonly thatçttherealculpritisthe system itself.''(M ot.2:42-47). SomeofPlaintifpscriticisms
St

2 I ofthe dysfunctionalsystem ofmotivations thatcurrently pervade the m ortgage industry are 1

'

22 vali
d,andperhapsCongressortheStateAssemblyshouldaddresstheseissues,butunfortunately j
w.

)
23 theseargumentsdonotsupportalcgalclaim.M ostoftheotherclaims,suchasunjust .
ww

24 enrichm ent,breach ofGduciary duty,and negiigence,are unm eritorious ifgrounded purely in a

25 foreclosure and directed againsta lender.The only claimsthatappearpossible notto say
Page 3 of 5

l
 I
.

j .
'

i
I lausible aretheTILA , HO EPA ,and RESPA claims,notaIlofw hich supportrescission,and

m
1
P '
I 2 noneofw hich can be assessed w ithoutexam ining the Ioan docum ents.

.co
3 DefendanthasGledarequestforjudicialnotice.TheGrstdeedoftrust(:;FDOT,,)
1 4 indicatesasaleonOctober14, 2005.(SeeFDOT 1,3,Oct,14,2005,ECFNo.11-1,at5).

ud
5 Plaintifffiled the presentaction on Septem ber 15,20l0,alm ostGve years later. Therefore,the
5
6 statute oflim itationshas run on any action grounded in the purchase ofthe Property w ith a

ra
7 statute oflim itationsoffouryearsofless. A lIclaim sin thisaction are therefore tim e-barred
I 8 excepttbeqtliettitleclaim (SeeMot,Dismiss5-8,Nov.30,20l0,ECFNo.l0(Iistingthe

eF
,

9 relevantstateandfederalstatutesoflimitationsclaim-by-claiml).
!
l 10 The FDOT lists RiverCity G roup,LLC as the lenderand United Title ofN evada as the

ur
11 tnlstee.LseeFDOT 1-2).TheNoticeofDefaultandElectiontoSell(t$NOD'')filedonMarch9,
los
l2 2010 listsTrusteeCorpsasthe foreclosing trustee.(SeeNOD 1,M ar.5,2010,ECFNo.l1-l,at
13 38)Nosubstitutionoftrusteeappearsintherecord.Theseconddeedoftrust($fSDOT''),
.
1
1 '
14 however,Iists W ellsFargo Bank aslenderand A m erican SecuritiesCo.of-Nevada as Trustee.
ec

15 (SceSDOT l,Oct.25,2005,ECFNo.11-l,at25).TheNOD indicatesthatDefendant,the

or

l6 lender(beneficiary)undertheSDOT,commandedTrusteeCorpstoforecloseontheFDOT,(see
17 NOD 2),towhichDefendantappearstohavebeenastranger.Thequiettitleciaim istherefore
F

l8 viable.
op

19 CONCLUSION

20 IT ISHEREBY ORDERED thattheEntl'yofDefault(ECFNo.8)isSET ASIDE.

St

2I IT IS FURTHER ORD ERED thattheM otionto Dism iss(ECFNo.10)isGRANTED in

w.

22 partand DEN IED in part. A llclaim s aredism issed exceptthe claim forquiettitle dueto .

23 statutorily defective foreclosure.

ww

24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatD efendantsw illnotsellthc Property forone-hundred

25 (100)days.Duringthisperiod,Plaintiffwillmakefull,regularmonthlypaymentsunderthenote
Page4 of 5

i
1
 !

m
l everythirty(30)days,withtheGrstpaymentdueten(10)daysafterthedateofthisorder.The '
2 amountofeach paym entw illbe according to the m onthly paymentasofthe date oftheN O D.

.co
3 FailuretomakemonthlypaymentsduringtheinjunctionperiodwillresultinaIiûingofthe
4 injunction.Plaintiffneednotpaylatefeesorcuretheentireamountofpastdefaultatthistime.

ud
5 IT ISFURTHER ORDERED thatduringtheinjunctionperiodthepartieswillengagein
6 the state Foreclosure M ediation Program ,ifavailable. lfnotavailable,Defendantsw illconduct

ra
7 a private mediation with Plaintiffin good faith. The beneficiary mustsend a representative to .
8 the m ediation w ith actualauthority to modify thenote,although actualm oditication is not

eF
9 rcquired. Plaintiffwillprovide requested information to Defendants in advance ofthe m ediation

I0 in good faith.
11
ur
IT IS FURTH ER ORD ERED thatDefendantrem ainsfreeto file a m otion forsum mary '
I
los
12 judgmentduringtheinjunctionperiodtoshow aproperchainofassignmentsand/orsubstitutions !
13 before Gling ofthe NO D.
ec

14 IT IS SO O RDERED.
d
15 .
or

16 Dated this l9thday ofJanual'

y,2011, ' ' h
'
'
j
$
17 '
F

l8 ko T C.JONES
op

United ates DistrictJudge .

19 '
20
St

21
w.

22

23
ww

24

25
.
page 5 of 5