Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00354/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00354-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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 - 09cv0354

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON E. ERICKSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv0354 JM(RBB)

GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS;

vs. GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., et

al.,

Defendants.

Defendants Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Homeloans, Inc.,

and Bank of America Corporation move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Don Erickson opposes the motion. The only

other defendant, Full Spectrum Lending, Inc. has yet to make an appearance. Pursuant

to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted with 20 days leave to

amend from the date of entry of this order.

BACKGROUND

The operative First Amendment Complaint (“FAC”), filed on March 21, 2009,

alleges federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. The FAC alleges two

state law causes of action for (1) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof Code Section 17500 and

Case 3:09-cv-00354-JM-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/14/09 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

27

28

1

 While no federal claim is asserted in the FAC, it appears as if there is complete diversity of

citizenship amongst the parties and the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional minimum of

28 U.S.C. §1332. Upon amending the complaint, Plaintiff is instructed to clarify the basis for this

court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

- 2 - 09cv0354

(2) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.1 

Plaintiff’s claims appear to be largely based upon a complaint filed by the

California Attorney General against Countrywide in People v. Countrywide Financial

Corp., LASC Case No. LC081846. (Def. Exh. A). The complaint at issue does not

identify the particulars of Plaintiff’s loan and other circumstances. Rather, the

complaint appears to merely parrot the allegations made by the Attorney General. The

complaint sets forth a series of allegations concerning hybrid ARM loans, 2/28 and 3/27

ARMs, 5/1, 7/1 and 10/1 ARMs and others. There is no indication in the complaint that

Plaintiff has one of the identified loans or that Plaintiff was subject to any underwriting

abuse identified in the complaint.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only in

"extraordinary" cases. United States v. Redwood City, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir.

1981). Courts should grant 12(b)(6) relief only where a plaintiff's complaint lacks a

"cognizable legal theory" or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Courts should

dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim when the factual allegations are

insufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp

v. Twombly, __550 U.S. __, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007) (the complaint’s allegations must

“plausibly suggest[]” that the pleader is entitled to relief); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937 (2009) (under Rule 8(a), well-pleaded facts must do more than permit the court

to infer the mere possibility of misconduct). “The plausibility standard is not akin to

a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant

has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 1949. Thus, “threadbare recitals of the elements of a

Case 3:09-cv-00354-JM-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/14/09 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

27

28

- 3 - 09cv0354

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. The

defect must appear on the face of the complaint itself. Thus, courts may not consider

extraneous material in testing its legal adequacy. Levine v. Diamanthuset, Inc., 950

F.2d 1478, 1482 (9th Cir. 1991). The courts may, however, consider material properly

submitted as part of the complaint. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co.,

896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Courts must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1500 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. dismissed, 116 S. Ct. 1710

(1996). Accordingly, courts must accept as true all material allegations in the

complaint, as well as reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. Holden v.

Hagopian, 978 F.2d 1115, 1118 (9th Cir. 1992). However, conclusory allegations of

law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. In

Re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir. 1996).

Finally, Rule 8 requires a plaintiff to “plead a short and plain statement of the

elements of his or her claim, identifying the transaction or occurrence giving rise to the

claim and the elements of the prima facie case.” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216

F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). 

DISCUSSION

The court concludes that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and

Rule 12(b)(6). The generalized allegations in the complaint are a virtual copy of the

complaint filed by the Attorney General of California against Countrywide. Absent

specific allegations pertaining to Plaintiff’s loans, the complaint fails to apprise

Defendants of the nature of the claims asserted against them such that they can prepare

an adequate answer. Allegations that unspecified individuals related to Defendants

engaged in wrongful conduct against the public as a whole or, alternatively, against

unidentified third parties, simply fail to establish that Plaintiff, individually, is entitled

to relief. 

The court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion sets forth specific and

Case 3:09-cv-00354-JM-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/14/09 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

27

28

- 4 - 09cv0354

additional details concerning his loans and interactions with Defendants. Consequently,

the court grants Plaintiff 20 days leave to amend from the date of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:09-cv-00354-JM-JMA Document 20 Filed 09/14/09 Page 4 of 4