Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SLEZAK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TCIF, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-3537 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS, CONSTRUED AS

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

On April 13, 2006, defendants TCIF LLC (“TCIF”) and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

(“SPS”) filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff Richard Slezak’s First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”), pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (b)(3), and (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. By order filed May 16, 2006, the Court granted plaintiff’s application to consider

his untimely opposition, and afforded defendants the opportunity to address in their reply a

threshold issue, specifically, whether on November 16, 2004, the date IndyMac Bank

(“IndyMac”) discharged plaintiff from any obligations plaintiff had to IndyMac, IndyMac held

an interest in plaintiff’s real property. Thereafter, on June 9, 2006, defendants filed their

reply. Upon review of defendants’ reply, the Court, by order filed June 22, 2006, advised

the parties the Court would treat defendants’ motion as a motion for summary judgment,

and set a further briefing schedule. Thereafter, plaintiff filed further opposition to

defendants’ motion, and defendants filed a further reply.

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 51 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Also, on July 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for declaratory relief, seeking therein a

declaration that any assignment from IndyMac to TCIF is void. Defendants filed opposition

to plaintiff’s motion, and plaintiff filed a reply.

Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties in connection with defendants’

motion to dismiss, treated as a motion for summary judgment, and in connection with

plaintiff’s motion for declaratory relief, the Court hereby RULES as follows:

1. To the extent plaintiff’s claims against SPS and TCIF are premised on the theory

that IndyMac did not transfer its interests in the subject real property to TCIF prior to

November 16, 2004, defendants, for the reasons set forth in defendants’ filings, are entitled

to summary judgment. In particular, defendants have offered evidence that IndyMac

transferred its interest in the subject property to TCIF before November 16, 2004, (see

Samberg Decl. Ex. A), as well as an explanation why the transfer was not recorded until

after November 16, 2004, (see id. ¶ 4), and plaintiff has failed to submit sufficient evidence

to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the transfer did not occur before November

16, 2004.

2. To the extent plaintiff’s claims against SPS are premised on the theory that,

assuming IndyMac did transfer its interests to TCIF prior to November 16, 2004, SPS has

violated plaintiff’s rights under the “Curry” settlement, (see, e.g., FAC ¶ 8), SPS, for the

reasons set forth in defendants’ filings, is entitled to dismissal without prejudice of such

claims, in that the proper venue for such claims is the District of Massachusetts. (See

Defs.’ Req. for Judicial Notice, filed April 13, 2006, ¶ 3.)

3. As set forth in defendants’ filings, plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient showing

that the above-referenced transfer from IndyMac to TCIF is void. Consequently, plaintiff is

not entitled to declaratory relief.

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 51 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, defendants’ motion to dismiss, construed as a

motion for summary judgment, is hereby GRANTED, and plaintiff’s motion for declaratory

relief is hereby DENIED.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and thereafter

close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 51 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 3