Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00425/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00425-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY KASSMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, a Corporation; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEM; SELECT 

PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC, a 

Corporation; BANK OF NEW YORK 

MELLON, INC. as Trustee for 

the Certificate Holder of the 

CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan 

Trust 2005-51 Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 

2005-51; BANK OF NEW YORK 

MELLON; MTC FINANCIAL, a 

Corporation dba TRUSTEE 

CORPS; YORK REAL ESTATE 

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a 

California Limited Liability 

Company; JAMES YORK, an 

individual; JOHN SHANER, an 

individual; and DOES 1 

THROUGH 50 inclusive, 

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-00425-JAM-CKD

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Defendant Bank of America, National Association (BANA) seeks 

to dismiss Plaintiff Anthony Kassman’s (“Plaintiff’s”) First 

Case 2:16-cv-00425-JAM-CKD Document 26 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 5
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

Amended Complaint (FAC) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

(“Rule”) 8(a)(2) (Doc. #17). For the following reasons, the

motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.1

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his FAC in state court in December 2015. He 

alleges twenty-one causes of action, related to the foreclosure 

of his property. Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration 

System, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc, and Bank Of New York 

Mellon, Inc. as Trustee for the Certificate Holder of the CWALT, 

Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2005-51 Mortgage Pass-Through 

Certificates, Series 2005-51 (collectively, “Removal Defendants”)

removed this case on February 26, 2016, asserting subject matter 

jurisdiction on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. 

Notice of Removal (Doc. #1) 3:7–11.

BANA moved to dismiss (Doc. #5), and the motion was fully 

briefed. Thereafter, the Court issued a minute order dismissing 

BANA’s motion without prejudice for failure to comply with the 

Court’s Order requiring counsel to meet and confer before filing 

any motion (Doc. #14). BANA filed another motion to dismiss, 

which Removal Defendants joined (Doc. ##17, 20). Plaintiff 

opposes (Doc. #22), and both BANA and Removal Defendants have 

replied (Doc. ##23, 24). 

 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 

for July 19, 2016.

Case 2:16-cv-00425-JAM-CKD Document 26 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 5
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

II. OPINION

BANA “moves to dismiss on grounds that Plaintiff’s 123-page, 

613-paragraph operative complaint violates Rule 8’s wellestablished requirement that a pleading contain ‘a short and 

plain statement of the claim.’” BANA’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s FAC 

Pursuant to Rule 8 (“Mot.”) 1:6–8. BANA “requests that this 

Court dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with 

prejudice.” Id. at 3:9–10.

In his opposition, Plaintiff argues that he was not subject 

to the Rule 8 pleading standard when he filed in state court. 

Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. & Mem. of P. & A. ISO Same (“Opp’n”) 2:26–28, 

3:22. Plaintiff asks the Court to “grant his request to amend 

the complaint.” Id. at 4:12–13.

The Court agrees with the parties that Plaintiff’s FAC does 

not comply with Rule 8. Rule 8(a)(2) dictates: “A pleading that 

states a claim for relief must contain: . . . (2) a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 

to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8(d)(1) states: “Each 

allegation [of a pleading] must be simple, concise, and direct.” 

Id. 8(d)(1).

The FAC is unnecessarily lengthy and repetitive, and it 

lacks “simple, concise, and direct” allegations. Id. For

example, Plaintiff has not made clear connections between general 

information about BANA’s past business practices and Plaintiff. 

BANA and Removal Defendants, however, have not shown that 

amendment would be futile, for the reasons discussed below. 

BANA relies in part on Lowery v. Hauk, 422 F. Supp. 490 

(C.D. Cal. 1976) for the proposition that “federal courts can and 

Case 2:16-cv-00425-JAM-CKD Document 26 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 5
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

do dismiss original complaints on Rule 8 grounds.” BANA’s Reply 

ISO Mot. 3:21. In Lowery, the court found the fourteen-page 

complaint violated Rule 8, but it also found judicial immunity 

precluded plaintiff’s claims. Id. at 492–93. Unlike Lowry, BANA 

has not shown this lawsuit “cannot be maintained against” the 

named defendants. Id. at 492.

Removal Defendants present two additional reasons for 

dismissal without leave to amend. First, they argue Plaintiff 

brings the FAC “in ‘bad faith and with a dilatory purpose.’” 

Removal Defs.’ Notice of Joinder & Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to 

Comply with Rule 8(a)(2) (“Joinder”) 2:10 (quoting Jerviss v. 

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01904-MCE-KJN, 2015 

WL 7572130, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2015)). Removal Defendants 

point to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8 and “tactics 

during the meet and confer process.” Joinder 2:12–20. Removal

Defendants, however, have not demonstrated Plaintiff filed this 

lawsuit in bad faith and with a dilatory purpose sufficient to 

justify dismissal without leave to amend. 

Second, Removal Defendants argue in a conclusory manner that 

“Plaintiff cannot amend the FAC in good faith because he assigned 

his rights in this action to Donald Hubbard.” Joinder 2:23–24. 

Removal Defendants submit an exhibit entitled “Assignment 

Agreement,” which they assert is “a notarized assignment of 

Plaintiff’s right to sue in this action.” Decl. of Connor W. 

Olson ISO Joinder (Doc. #20-1) ¶ 4; Ex. A, at 1. Generally, the 

Court may not consider material beyond the pleadings in ruling on 

a motion to dismiss, and Removal Defendants have failed to 

establish a proper basis for the court to take judicial notice of 

Case 2:16-cv-00425-JAM-CKD Document 26 Filed 08/03/16 Page 4 of 5
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

this exhibit. Viewing the exhibit as currently presented, the 

Court is unable to verify its accuracy, and its content does not 

appear to be commonly known in the community. See Fed. R. Evid. 

201(b). 

III. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss is

GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall file his amended 

complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order. 

This action may be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b) if Plaintiff fails to file an amended 

complaint within the prescribed time period. Defendants shall

file their responsive pleadings to this amended complaint within 

twenty (20) days thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00425-JAM-CKD Document 26 Filed 08/03/16 Page 5 of 5