Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01796/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01796-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vladimir Brunat, Dagmar Brunat

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

IndyMac Federal Bank; Deutsche Bank

National Trust Company; Quality Loan

Service Corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1796-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (doc. 32), defendant

Deutsche Bank’s response (doc. 41), plaintiffs’ reply (doc. 42) and motion to strike (doc. 43).

We first deny plaintiffs’ motion to strike (doc. 43). Objections to arguments raised

in a response should be contained in a reply and not presented by separate motion. See

LRCiv 7.2(m)(2).

In our May 26, 2010 Order (doc. 29), we held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for

statutory damages under TILA because Deutsche Bank is the assignee of the underlying deed

of trust and the alleged TILA violations were not apparent on the face of the disclosure

statement. See 15 U.S.C. § 1641(a). Plaintiffs do not challenge this holding. 

Instead, plaintiffs ask us to reconsider our conclusion that the right of rescission is not

an available remedy against Deutsche Bank because the subject transaction involved the

“refinancing” of a loan. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(e)(2). Plaintiffs argue for the first time in

Case 2:09-cv-01796-FJM Document 44 Filed 07/26/10 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

- 2 -

their motion for reconsideration that TILA’s exception to the right of rescission does not

apply to refinancing transactions unless the refinancing is advanced by “the same creditor

[and is] secured by an interest in the same property.” Id. Plaintiffs contend that the

exception does not apply in this case because their original loan was provided by M&I Bank,

while the refinancing was advanced by IndyMac Bank. 

Although we requested a response from Deutsche Bank, it did not address the merits

of this argument. Instead, it raised new grounds to support its dismissal from the case. These

arguments are better presented in a motion for summary judgment and we do not consider

them here. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (doc. 32) and

revising our order to conclude that Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss is denied to the extent

that the complaint seeks the remedy of rescission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motion to strike (doc. 43). 

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01796-FJM Document 44 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2