Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01200/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01200-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NADEEM AHMAD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1200 JAM DAD PS

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This matter came before the court on May 21, 2010, for hearing of the motions to

dismiss filed by defendants First American Loanstar Trustee Services and Citi Mortgage, Inc.,

and plaintiff’s counter-motion for leave to amend or for an extension of time to oppose

defendants’ motions. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se with this action, appeared on his own

behalf. Lyle Solomon, Esq. appeared for defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services,

and Curtis Molloy, Esq. appeared for defendant Citi Mortgage, Inc.

Upon consideration of the briefing on file, the parties’ arguments at the hearing,

and the entire file, the court granted defendants’ motions for the reasons stated in open court. In

light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court granted plaintiff a final opportunity to amend his

complaint.

/////

Case 2:09-cv-01200-JAM-DAD Document 41 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 4
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

2

As set forth in the court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s original complaint with

leave to amend,

[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the

complaint at any time if the court determines that the pleading is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. A

complaint is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in

law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous

where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where

the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at

327; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the

plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007). In considering whether a complaint states a

cognizable claim, the court accepts as true the material allegations

in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69,

73 (1984); Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S.

738, 740 (1976); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th

Cir. 1989). The court need not accept as true conclusory

allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of

fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir.

1981). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than

those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

(1972).

. . . .

[A] short and plain statement of claims [is] required by

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the

Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must

give fair notice to the defendants and allege facts that state the

elements of the claims both plainly and succinctly. See Jones v.

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). A

plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

specific acts which each defendant engaged in that support the

plaintiff’s claims. See id. . . . 

 

(Order filed May 20, 2009 (Doc. No. 3) at 2-3.)

With regard to claims of fraud, plaintiff is advised that “the circumstances

constituting fraud . . . shall be stated with particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). “Rule 9(b) serves

not only to give notice to defendants of the specific fraudulent conduct against which they must

Case 2:09-cv-01200-JAM-DAD Document 41 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 4
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

 In addition, “[u]nder California law, the ‘indispensable elements of a fraud claim 1

include a false representation, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and

damages.’” Vess, 317 F.3d at 1105 (quoting Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1245 (9th Cir.

1996)).

3

defend, but also ‘to deter the filing of complaints as a pretext for the discovery of unknown

wrongs, to protect [defendants] from the harm that comes from being subject to fraud charges,

and to prohibit plaintiffs from unilaterally imposing upon the court, the parties and society

enormous social and economic costs absent some factual basis.’” Bly-Magee v. California, 236

F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting In re Stac Elec. Sec. Litig., 89 F.3d 1399, 1405 (9th

Cir. 1996)). Thus, pursuant to Rule 9(b), a plaintiff alleging fraud at a minimum must plead

evidentiary facts such as the time, place, persons, statements and explanations of why allegedly

misleading statements are misleading. In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F. 3d 1541, 1547 n.7

(9th Cir. 1994); see also Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003);

Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 1995).1

Plaintiff is reminded that any amended complaint must be complete in itself

without reference to prior pleadings that have been dismissed. See Local Rule 220. The court

cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. 

See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must

contain factual allegations describing the conduct and events which underlie his claims against

each defendant named in the pleading. Plaintiff is cautioned that he should not name as a

defendant any party against whom he cannot allege specific facts showing that the defendant

caused plaintiff harm in violation of a specific provision of an applicable statute. Plaintiff is

directed not to name American Brokers Conduit as a defendant in his second amended complaint

because that entity responded to plaintiff’s first amended complaint by filing a notice of

bankruptcy proceedings in which an injunction precludes the commencement of judicial

proceedings against it. Plaintiff is also directed not to name Land America Commonwealth as a

defendant in his second amended complaint, unless plaintiff has an address for service of process

Case 2:09-cv-01200-JAM-DAD Document 41 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

that is different from the address plaintiff provided to the United States Marshal for service of the

first amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services’ January 27, 2010 motion

to dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is granted;

2. Defendant Citi Mortgage, Inc.’s February 26, 2010 motion to dismiss (Doc.

No. 23) is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s April 5, 2010 motion (Doc. No. 31) is granted with regard to the

motion to amend and denied with regard to the motion for extension of time to respond to

defendants’ motions;

4. Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall be titled “Second Amended Complaint”

and shall be filed with the court within thirty days after the hearing held on May 21, 2010;

5. The second amended complaint filed with the court shall include a proof of

service showing that a copy of the pleading was served by mail on counsel for defendant First

American Loanstar Trustee Services and counsel for defendant Citi Mortgage, Inc.; the court will

issue a further order regarding service of the second amended complaint on other defendants;

6. If First American Loanstar Trustee Services or City Mortgage, Inc. is named as

a defendant in plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the defendant shall respond to the pleading

within thirty days after it is filed.

DATED: May 25, 2010.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.prose\ahmad1200.oah.052110.motsgr

Case 2:09-cv-01200-JAM-DAD Document 41 Filed 05/25/10 Page 4 of 4