Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02771/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02771-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Although plaintiffs’ opposition was filed March 2, 2010 and thus was untimely, see

Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (providing “[a]ny opposition to a motion must be served and filed not less

than 21 days before the hearing date”), the Court, in its discretion, has considered such

opposition.

2

 Defendant did not provide the Court with a chambers copy of its reply. Although

the Court has exercised its discretion to consider such filing, defendant, for future

reference, is reminded of the following provision in the Court’s Standing Orders: “In all

cases that have been assigned to the Electronic Case Filing Program, the parties are

required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER SINGH and ANSUIYA SINGH,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, a

Washington corporation, f/k/a

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA; J.P.

MORGAN CHASE BANK, a New York

corporation, as successor in interest to

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA

successor to WASHINGTON MUTUAL

HOME LOANS; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C-09-2771 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

JPMORGAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

VACATING HEARING; DENYING AS

MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

Before the Court is defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss

plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”). Plaintiffs have filed opposition,1

 to which

defendant has replied.2 Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in

Case 3:09-cv-02771-MMC Document 41 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

electronically. The paper copy of each such document shall be delivered no later than

noon on the day after the document is filed electronically. The paper copy shall be marked

‘Chambers Copy’ and shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office in an envelope clearly marked

with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘E-Filing Chambers Copy.’”

3

 In light of such finding, defendant’s Motion to Appear by Telephone at the Motion to

Dismiss is hereby DENIED as moot. Additionally, for future reference, the parties are

informed the Court does not conduct contested hearings by telephone. 

2

opposition to the motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision on the parties’

written submissions, hereby VACATES the hearing set for March 19, 2010,3 and rules as

follows. 

Plaintiffs allege seven Causes of Action in the TAC. By the instant motion defendant

seeks dismissal of the Seventh Cause of Action ("Accounting"). “A cause of action for an

accounting requires a showing [1] that a relationship exists between the plaintiff and

defendant that requires an accounting, and [2] that some balance is due the plaintiff that

can only be ascertained by an accounting.” See Teselle v. McLoughlin, 173 Cal.App.4th

156, 179 (2009). Here, the TAC fails to allege a balance is due either plaintiff. Rather,

plaintiffs allege “[t]he amount of money, if any, still owed to defendants, and any of them, is

unknown to plaintiffs and cannot be determined without an accounting.” (See TAC ¶ 81)

(emphasis added). Under such circumstances, plaintiffs fail to state a claim for an

accounting, and the relief sought by plaintiffs in their Seventh Cause of Action is more

appropriately pursued under plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action (“Violation of RESPA”). (See

TAC ¶¶ 39, 65, 66); see also 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) (imposing duties on loan servicers to

respond to borrower inquiries). 

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Seventh Cause of Action is

hereby GRANTED and plaintiffs’ Seventh Cause of Action is hereby dismissed without

leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02771-MMC Document 41 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2