Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01905/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01905-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mena Bishara, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

U.S. Bank Home Mortgage; a Corporation;

MERS; US Bank NA; Does I through X

inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1905-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ U.S. Bank NA d/b/a U.S. Bank Home

Mortgage’s (“U.S. Bank”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s (“MERS”)

Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 19). The Court now rules

on the Motions.

I. BACKGROUND

In or around April 2008, Plaintiff executed a promissory note in the amount of

$830,231.00, in connection with a loan from U.S. Bank (Amended Complaint, Doc. 1-1 at

5). The promissory note was secured by a Deed of Trust recorded against the property

located at 17422 North 100th Place, Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 (the “Property”). (Id.).

Plaintiff alleges that he signed a Deed of Trust intended to secure the promissory note on the

Property, but the Deed of Trust that was recorded was not, in its entirety, the same Deed that

he signed. (Id. at 3, ¶ 10 and 2, ¶6b). Plaintiff alleges that he was never given a copy of the

Deed of Trust that he actually signed. (Id. at 3, ¶ 10). Plaintiff alleges that his signature on

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 12
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

 The Court notes that these page numbers do not actually correspond to page

numbers on the Deed of Trust that Plaintiff attached to his Complaint. The document that

Plaintiff refers to as the “Deed of Trust” attached to the Complaint contains the following

documents: Deed of Trust, 15 pages; Exhibit A, 1 page; Initial Interest and Adjustable Rate

Rider, 4 pages; and Planned Unit Development Rider, 3 pages. The Court notes that these

documents have hand-written sequential numbering in the lower right hand corner. 

Accordingly, the Court will assume for the purposes of this Order that Plaintiff

disputes the signature on page 4 of 4 of the Initial Interest Adjustable Rate Rider (page 20

when counting sequentially and bearing handwritten number “20” in the lower right hand

corner), page 3 of 3 of the Planned Unit Development Rider (page 23 when counting

sequentially and bearing handwritten number “20” in the lower right hand corner), and the

initials on page 3 of 4 of the Initial Interest Adjustable Rate Rider (page 19 when counting

sequentially and bearing handwritten number “19” in the lower right hand corner). Although

Plaintiff alleges the “initials” on page 23 are also a forgery, there are no initials on page 23

of the document provided by Plaintiff. 

- 2 -

pages 20 and 23 of the Deed of Trust and his initials on pages 19 and 23 of the Deed of Trust

were forged on the Deed of Trust that was recorded.1

 (Id. at 2, ¶ 6b and Exhibit B, Doc. 1-1

at 82-85). 

On May 6, 2010, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded, which set the Trustee’s sale

of the Property for August 5, 2010. (Doc. 1-1 at 75). Exhibit A to the Notice of Trustee’s

Sale was a Statement of Breach or Non-Performance, stating that Plaintiff had failed to make

monthly payments on the loan from May 1, 2009 through May 6, 2010 (the date of the

Notice). (Doc. 1-1 at 77). Plaintiff admits that he fell behind on his mortgage payments. (Id.

at 7). 

Plaintiff alleges that, after the Trustee’s Sale was scheduled, he attempted to secure

a loan modification agreement with U.S. Bank. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff alleges that U.S. Bank

instructed the Trustee to postpone the sale of the Property several times while they attempted

to negotiate a loan modification. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants drag the process

for a long time to exhaust Plaintiff effort to modify the loan,” so he “gave up on Defendants

modification and decided to secure new loan to pay Defendants but in the process of getting

a copy of the Deed of Trust . . . Plaintiff discovered the fabricated recorded deed of trust

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 12
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 -

which prevented Plaintiff ability to secure a loan on the property.” (Id. at 7). 

Plaintiff filed suit in Maricopa County Superior Court on May 3, 2011. (Id. at 58).

On August 22, 2011, Plaintiff amended his Complaint. (Id. at 5). The Amended Complaint

raises claims for unjust enrichment, fraudulent reconveyance, breach of good faith and fair

dealing, and seeks damages of: a Declaratory Judgment that Defendants are in violation of

Arizona law by recording a forged deed of trust with the Maricopa County Recorder, a

preliminary injunction stopping the foreclosure and sale of the Property until production of

the original deed of trust, an Order that Defendants return all monies received from Plaintiff

under a forged deed of trust, and emotional and punitive damages. (Id. at 5-9). 

On September 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Application for Temporary Restraining Order

seeking to enjoin the Trustee’s Sale scheduled for September 16, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. (Id. at

114). On September 20, 2011, Judge Michael R. McVey of the Maricopa County Superior

Court entered the following Minute Entry:

On September 1, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Application for

Temporary Protective Order. The Court was unwilling to issue

a temporary restraining order based on the application.

However, at the direction of the Court, court staff advised

Plaintiff that it would set an Order to Show Cause Hearing.

Plaintiff was advised to provide the Court with an Order to

Show Cause for the signature of the Court. The Court has heard

nothing from Plaintiff since then. Presumably the trustee sale

scheduled for September 16, 2011, has either occurred, or has

been postponed. No further action will be taken at this time. 

(Id. at 118).

The case was removed to this Court on September 27, 2011. (Id.). 

On October 4, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended

Complaint. (Doc. 4). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted and because Plaintiff’s claims for forgery are time barred, were waived, or are in

the nature of fraud and not adequately pled as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

9(b). (Doc. 4 at 1). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 12
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 -

A. Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, a complaint must meet

the requirements of Rule 8. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” so that the defendant has “fair notice of what

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

Although a complaint attacked for failure to state a claim does not need detailed

factual allegations, the pleader’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief requires “more

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

will not do.” Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The factual

allegations of the complaint must be sufficient to raise a right to relief above a speculative

level. Id. 

Rule 8’s pleading standard demands more than “an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937,

1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A complaint that offers nothing more than

blanket assertions will not suffice. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, which, if accepted as true, states a claim to relief that is “plausible

on its face.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Facial plausibility exists if the pleader pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

the misconduct alleged. Id. Plausibility does not equal “probability,” but plausibility

requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. “Where a

complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent’ with a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short

of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 

Further, in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe

the facts alleged in a Complaint in the light most favorable to the drafter of the Complaint,

and the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Shwarz v. United

States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, the Court does not have to accept

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 4 of 12
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

- 5 -

as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation, Papasan, 478 U.S. at 286, or an

allegation that contradicts facts that may be judicially noticed by the Court, Shwarz, 234 F.3d

at 435.

B. Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

With respect to Plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud, Rule 9(b) governs the pleading

standard. “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the

circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Rule 9(b) requires

allegations of fraud to be “specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular

misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against

the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.” Bly-Magee v. California,

236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001). “While statements of the time, place and nature of the

alleged fraudulent activities are sufficient, mere conclusory allegations of fraud are

insufficient.” Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 540 (9th Cir. 1989).

Further,

Rule 9(b) does not allow a complaint to merely lump multiple

defendants together but requires plaintiffs to differentiate their

allegations when suing more than one defendant and inform

each defendant separately of the allegations surrounding his

alleged participation in the fraud. In the context of a fraud suit

involving multiple defendants, a plaintiff must, at a minimum,

identify the role of each defendant in the alleged fraudulent

scheme.

Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764–65 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotations and citations

omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Complaint includes three causes of action: (1) unjust enrichment, (2)

fraudulent reconveyance, and (3) breach of good faith and fair dealing. All three of these

Counts arise from the alleged forgery of Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust and Plaintiff’s allegation

that Defendants failed to give him a loan modification. 

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint

must meet the requirements of Rule 8. Plaintiff has failed to plead enough facts in his

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 5 of 12
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

 The Court notes that the signatures and initials that Plaintiff actually alleges are

forgeries are not contained in his Deed of Trust, but are rather contained in documents

recorded with or supplementary to the Deed of Trust. (See Footnote 1). 

- 6 -

Complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the facts pleaded in the

Complaint do not support theories of liability for the claims that Plaintiff has alleged against

Defendants. Further, Plaintiff has failed to individualize Defendants by identifying which

wrongdoing was committed by which Defendant. This has left Defendants and the Court

with the impossible task of guessing which claims are asserted against which Defendant.

Rather than attempting to cure this problem in his Response to Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss, Plaintiff simply repeats and elaborates on facts originally alleged in his Complaint.

The Court will discuss these facts in more detail below.

A. The Loan Modification

The Court is unable to determine if any of the Counts in the Complaint relate to

Plaintiff’s failure to obtain a loan modification. However, in his Response to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff argues that he “filed the original action against Defendants to

get a loan Modification.” (Doc. 9 at 1). This is not an appropriate use of the judicial process

unless Plaintiff is able to allege some wrongdoing on Defendants’ part that would entitle him

to a loan modification. Plaintiff has failed to do so. 

Plaintiff alleges that he “fell behind on his mortgage payment,” and “attempted to

secure a loan modification with US Bank Home Mortgage,” but due to Defendants’ alleged

“dragging out” of the modification process, “Plaintiff gave up on Defendants [sic]

modification and decided to secure [sic] new loan to pay Defendants.” (Doc. 1-1 at 7). The

Court can ascertain no viable cause of action from Plaintiff’s allegations relating to his

failure to obtain a loan modification. 

B. The Forgery

All three of the Counts of Plaintiff’s Complaint appear to arise from the alleged

forgery of Plaintiff’s signature on the Deed of Trust.2

 Plaintiff has failed to plead enough

facts linking this alleged forgery to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 6 of 12
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

 In his Reply in Support of his Motion to Amend and at Oral Argument on the

Motion to Amend, Plaintiff conceded that MERS should be dismissed from this action.

(Doc. 23 at 2). Accordingly, MERS will be dismissed with prejudice.

- 7 -

acknowledges that he entered into a loan agreement with U.S. Bank and that he executed a

Deed of Trust securing that mortgage. (Doc. 1-1 at 7). Plaintiff’s main allegation against

Defendants is that, after he signed the Deed of Trust, Defendants allegedly recorded a

different Deed of Trust and forged his signature on that Deed. (Doc. 1-1 at 7). Plaintiff

alleges that the Property faces foreclosure “as a result of Defendants recording a deed of

trust.” (Id.). However, Plaintiff fails to articulate any connection between the foreclosure

proceedings and the allegedly forged Deed of Trust. 

Further, aside from alleging that his signature and initials were forged on certain pages

of the Deed of Trust that was recorded, Plaintiff has failed to allege the specific terms that

were changed from the Deed of Trust that he signed and the Deed of Trust that was recorded.

Although not alleged in his Complaint, in his Response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff

argues that “The terms of the deed are not the original terms that Plaintiff signed on April

2008.” (Doc. 9 at 2). However, this allegation is vague and Plaintiff does not provide any

specifics about the terms that were changed. The only specific that Plaintiff provides is that

certain signatures and initials on the recorded Deed of Trust “are like robot signing since the

hand that signed is not shaking while doing so.” (Doc. 9 at 2). 

While Defendants may be subject to criminal liability for allegedly forging Plaintiff’s

signature on a Deed of Trust, Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific facts or causes of

action that would entitle him to the relief he seeks in his Complaint as a result of such a

forgery. Further, while Plaintiff names MERS as a Defendant in this action, Plaintiff has

failed to assert any facts that relate to wrongdoing by MERS.3

C. Plaintiff has Failed to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be

Granted

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants forged his signature on a Recorded Deed of Trust.

Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with further facts that would allow the Court to

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 7 of 12
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

 Arizona Revised Statutes section 33-420(A) provides,

- 8 -

properly analyze Plaintiff’s causes of action of unjust enrichment, fraudulent reconveyance,

or breach of good faith and fair dealing. Further, Plaintiff has failed to connect this alleged

forgery to the relief he is seeking. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with:

notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

heightened standard for pleading fraud required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IV. LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint and attached a copy of his proposed

Amended Complaint to that Motion. Defendants argue that the Court should deny Plaintiff

leave to amend because allowing leave to amend would be futile. “Leave to amend need not

be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.” Moore v. Kayport Package

Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted). 

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges fraudulent recording pursuant to Arizona

Revised Statutes section 33-420(A) (Second Cause of Action) based on his allegations that

Defendant recorded a Deed of Trust in which Plaintiff’s signature and initials were forged.

 Plaintiff also asserts a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Third Cause of

Action) based on his allegations that Defendant blatantly disregarded Plaintiff’s request that

the non-judicial foreclosure be halted based on Plaintiff’s discovery that the signatures on

the Deed of Trust were forged. As a result of these alleged violations, Plaintiff seeks Quiet

Title to the Property (First Cause of Action), damages, and reasonable costs and attorneys’

fees. 

A. Arizona Revised Statutes section 33-420 (Second Cause of Action)

and Quiet Title (First Cause of Action)

Defendants argue that it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint

based on violations of section 33-420(A)4

 because the statute of limitations for such a claim

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 8 of 12
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

A person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or

encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document

asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county

recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document

is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false

claim or is otherwise invalid is liable to the owner or beneficial

title holder of the real property for the sum of not less than five

thousand dollars, or for treble the actual damages caused by the

recording, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney fees

and costs of the action.

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-420(A).

5

 Under the discovery rule, a cause of action begins to accrue when a plaintiff knew

or should have known of the cause of action. Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., 213 P.3d

320, 330 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009) (internal citation omitted).

- 9 -

has passed. The statute of limitations for violation of section 33-420(A) is one year. See

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(5) (“There shall be commenced and prosecuted within one year

after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions: . . .Upon liability

created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture.”). 

In this case, the Deed of Trust was recorded on April 18, 2008 and Plaintiff filed his

Complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court on May 3, 2011. Plaintiff argues that, even

if the one year statute of limitations applies to his claim, the statute of limitations was tolled

because he did not discover the forgery until he looked up his Deed of Trust through the

Maricopa County recorder within a year of filing his lawsuit. Even assuming the discovery

rule5

 applies in this case, it is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint that he should have

followed up on obtaining a copy of this Deed, either through further efforts to obtain a copy

from Defendants or by searching the publicly recorded documents on the Property. Plaintiff

acknowledges that he signed a Deed of Trust at the lender office in Las Vegas, but was never

given a copy of the Deed of Trust. (Doc. 1-1 at 7). Plaintiff further acknowledges that he

was told he would receive a copy in the mail, but a copy never arrived. (Id.). “Under the

discovery rule, a plaintiff need not know all the facts underlying a cause of action to trigger

accrual [of the statute of limitations], but the plaintiff must at least possess a minimum

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 9 of 12
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

6

 Further, although his allegations are somewhat inconsistent, it appears that Plaintiff

only challenges signatures on documents that were recorded with or supplementary to the

Deed of Trust, so that even if the Court were to declare those documents “void,” it does not

appear that the Court could declare the Deed of Trust void and thus could not grant Plaintiff

the relief he is seeking. However, the Court need not further address this because the statute

of limitations has run.

- 10 -

requisite of knowledge sufficient to identify that a wrong occurred and caused injury.”

Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C., 213 P.3d 320, 330-31 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009) (internal

quotations and citations omitted). 

Under these circumstances, where Plaintiff simply needed to perform a search of the

title of his Property to get a copy of the allegedly forged Deed of Trust and was told he

would receive a copy of such Deed of Trust, but never did, it would have taken minimal

effort and would have been reasonable for Plaintiff to search the contents of the public

records on the Property. See Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Trout, 701 P.2d 851 (Ariz. Ct. App.

1985) (“The discovery dates from the time that he, by exercise of reasonable diligence, might

have discovered the fraud.”); see also Serrano v. Serrano, No. 1 CA-CV 10-0649, 2012 WL

75639, at *4 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2012) (where quit claim deed was recorded containing

an allegedly fraudulent signature, Court held that Plaintiff should have been aware of the

need to investigate when the deed was recorded because “[h]ad [Plaintiff] conducted any

reasonable investigation about the status of the title . . . she could have discovered the

fraudulent conduct she now alleges” and thus, the statute of limitations would not be tolled).

Here, it is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint that the statute of limitations would

have begun to run within weeks of Plaintiff signing the Deed of Trust on the Property, after

he realized that Defendants refused to provide him with a copy of the Deed of Trust that he

signed.6

 Because over three years passed between the recording of the Deed of Trust and

Plaintiff’s Complaint, the statute of limitations for his section 33-420 action has run and,

thus, it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to allege a violation of

section 33-420. 

Finally, Plaintiff acknowledges that his cause of action for quiet title is dependent on

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 10 of 12
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

7

 In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants requested attorneys’ fees pursuant to

Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-341, 12-341.01, 12-349, 28 U.S.C. section 1927, and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to

attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. section 1927, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or Arizona

Revised Statutes section 12-349. Further, it does not appear to the Court that this action

arises out of contract so that attorneys’ fees would be appropriate under Arizona Revised

Statutes section 12-341.01. See In re Estate of Olson, 224 P.3d 938, 943 (Ariz. Ct. App.

- 11 -

obtaining relief under section 33-420, and thus, allowing Plaintiff to amend his cause of

action for quiet title would be futile. 

B. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted based on intentional infliction of emotional distress because that claim is based on

his forgery claim. 

The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are

(1) “the conduct by the defendant must be ‘extreme’ and ‘outrageous;’” (2) “the defendant

must either intend to cause emotional distress or recklessly disregard the near certainty that

such distress will result from his conduct;” and (3) “severe emotional distress must indeed

occur as a result of defendant’s conduct.” Mintz v. Bell Atl. Sys. Leasing Int’l., Inc., 905 P.2d

559, 562-563 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

 Accepting as true that Defendants refused to halt the foreclosure when Plaintiff

claimed signatures on the Deed of Trust were forged, the Court does not find that this

conduct rises to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct needed to state a claim for

intentional infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, allowing Plaintiff to amend the

cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress would be futile.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ U.S. Bank NA d/b/a U.S. Bank Home Mortgage’s

(“U.S. Bank”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s (“MERS”) Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 4) is granted with prejudice.7

 

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 11 of 12
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

2010). However, to the extent that Defendants wish to pursue an award of attorneys’ fees

and costs, the Court will consider whether such an award is appropriate upon Defendants’

filing of a motion for attorneys’ fees in compliance with LRCiv. 54.2. Any such motion shall

be filed within fourteen days of the date of this Order. Further, to the extent that Defendants

seek to recover taxable costs, compliance with LRCiv. 54.1 is mandatory. See LRCiv. 54.1;

see also Felix v. Pic-N-Run, Inc., No. CV 09-8015-PCT-JAT, 2012 WL 551645, at *4 (D.

Ariz. Feb. 21, 2012) (“Awarding taxable costs is governed by federal law.”) (internal citation

omitted). 

- 12 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 19) is denied.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that any Motion for Attorneys’ Fees shall be filed

within fourteen days of the date of this Order. 

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendants.

DATED this 7th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01905-JAT Document 25 Filed 05/07/12 Page 12 of 12