Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02795/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02795-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIE ELICE FONTAINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and

THE BANK OF NEW YORK 

MELLON, formerly known as The 

Bank of New York, as trustee,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST 

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

[ECF No. 3, 4] 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Julie Elice Fontaine, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint against 

Defendants Bank of America (“BOA”) and the Bank of New York (“BONY”) 

alleging violations of California Civil Code § 1572 (actual fraud), violations of 

California Civil Code §§ 2924(a) and 2934(a) (wrongful foreclosure), unjust 

enrichment, slander of title, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (ECF 

No. 1 “Compl.”). Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment as well as compensatory, 

special, punitive, and general damages. (Compl. ¶ 10). 

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
2

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 3). For 

reasons set forth below, the Court holds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res 

judicata. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants request judicial notice of the following documents: (1) The 

Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded on August 19, 2011; (2) The Substitution 

of Trustee recorded on October 17, 2011; (3) the Notice of Default recorded on 

October 17, 2011; (4) Substitution of Trustee recorded on April 9, 2014; (5) the 

Notice of Rescission of Notice of Default recorded on April 30, 2018; (6) the 

Notice of Default recorded on April 30, 2018; (7) the UCC Financing Statement 

recorded on February 24, 2012; (8) the Revocation of Deed recorded on June 

27, 2012; (9) the Complaint filed on October 23, 2013 in United States District 

Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 13-cv-1638; (10) the Memorandum opinion 

filed in the District of Columbia case; (11) the Order filed on May 16, 2014 in the 

United States District Court, District of Columbia case; (12) the Complaint filed on 

August 20, 2014 in the United States District Court, Southern District of 

California, Case No. 14-cv-1944; (13) the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss filed 

on January 7, 2015 in United States District Court, Southern District of California, 

Case No. 14-cv-1944; (14) The First Amended Complaint filed on June 25, 2015 

in United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 14-cv1944; (15) the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed 

August 21, 2015 in United States District Court; (16) the Order Denying Motion 

for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint filed on November 6, 2015 in the 

United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 14-cv-1944; 

(17) the Judgement filed November 7, 2015 in United States District Court, 

Southern District of California, Case No. 14-cv-1944; (18) the Mandate filed on 

September 8, 2017 in United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
3

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

15-56948; (19) the Complaint filed on December 1, 2017 in United States District 

Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-24-24; (20) The Order 

Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed on March 28, 2018 in United States 

District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 17-cv-2424; (21) the 

Judgment filed on March 28, 2018 in the United States District Court, Southern 

District of California, Case No. 17-cv-2424. (ECF No. 4). 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice.

III. BACKGROUND

A. Facts Alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff alleges the following facts in the instant Complaint. Plaintiff owns 

real property at 909 Glendora Drive, Oceanside, CA 92057 (“the Property”) that 

is the subject of this controversy. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7). In 2005, Plaintiff obtained a 

$517,500 mortgage loan from First Magnus Financial Corporation. (Compl., Exh. 

1). The Deed of Trust is notarized and bears what appears to be Plaintiff’s 

signature. (Id. at 15). 

On October 17, 2011, BONY substituted ReconTrust as the trustee through 

a recorded Substitution of Trustee. (Compl. ¶ 12; RJN Exh. 2). ReconTrust filed 

a Notice of Default. (Compl. ¶ 13; RJN Exh. 3). 

In April 2012, Plaintiff received a letter identifying BONY as the loan owner 

and BOA as the servicer. (Compl. ¶ 14). The letter included an “unendorsed 

copy of the Note with a stamp from Chicago Title certifying it as a true and 

correct copy of the original.” (Id.) 

In May 2012, Plaintiff received another letter from BOA that included an 

endorsement from Countrywide Bank, N.A. to Countrywide Home Loans; an 

endorsement from Countrywide Home Loands, Inc. “to a payee whose name was 

left blank”; and “a separate piece of paper with an endorsement stamp from First 

Magnus to Countrywide Bank, N.A.” that is “undated, without reference to the 

subject loan, and is not attached to the note.” (Id.)

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
4

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

On November 12, 2012, ReconTrust filed a Notice of Trustee Sale; 

ReconTrust then filed additional Notices of Trustee Sale on June 7, 2012, July 

18, 2013, and September 13, 2013. (Compl. ¶ 16). 

On March 23, 2015, Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing notified Plaintiff that 

Shellpoint was the “servicer” of the loan and BOA was the creditor. (Compl. ¶ 

17). A month later, Shellpoint notified Plaintiff that BONY was the owner of the 

loan and Shellpoint was the creditor. (Compl. ¶ 18). 

Clear Recon Corporation filed a Notice of Default on May 30, 2018. 

(Compl. ¶ 19). The Complaint notes “there is no evidence that the [sic] Clear 

Recon had been legally substituted as the Trustee for ReconTrust to file this 

Notice of Default.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that the Adjustable Rate Note, Adjustable Rate Rider, 

Planned Unit Development Rider, and Deed of Trust “provided by BOA” in these 

various transfers and assignments of rights are invalid because the documents

“were not signed by Plaintiff and contain signatures of Plaintiff that were forged.” 

(Compl. ¶ 21, 24). Although Plaintiff admits she signed the original documents,

Plaintiff alleges that the forgeries of her signature on the copies of the abovelisted documents render all assignments invalid and foreclosure rights void. (ECF 

No. 12 at 11, 13). 

In support of the forgery allegation, the Complaint avers that Plaintiff 

retained a “forensic handwriting and document examiner expert,” Mr. Curt 

Baggett, who is “a skilled authority in document examination and has been 

certified as an expert witness in numerous federal and state cases.” (Compl. ¶ 

23). Mr. Baggett’s Handwriting Expert Report, dated October 29, 2018, is 

attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶ 24). The report states “[t]he 

questioned intials and signatures were examined and noted to have significant 

dissimilarities present between the size, height, width of letters, angles, and 

connecting strokes when compared ot the known signatures” and concludes that 

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
5

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

Plaintiff “was not the author of the initials and signatures on the questioned 

documents.” (ECF No. 1 at 107).

On the foregoing facts, Plaintiff alleges fraud, violations of California Civil 

Code § 1572, violations of California Civil Code §§ 2924(a) and 2934(a), unjust 

enrichment, slander of title, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (See 

generally Compl.)

B. Proceedings 

Between 2013-2017, Plaintiff filed three lawsuits, two of which were filed in 

the Southern District of California, to challenge the Deed of Trust’s validity and 

prevent foreclosure. (See RJN Exhs. 9, 12, 19). In 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

complaint against BOA, BONY, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., MERS, ReconTrust, 

and Clear Recon Corp. Fontaine v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., 14-cv-01944-

WQH-DHB (hereinafter, Fontaine I). Defendants moved to dismiss the 

complaint, and the presiding court granted the motion with leave to amend. 

(Fontaine I, ECF No. 21). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which alleged 

that Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff of new creditors or properly record

transfers of Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust, thereby invalidating the most recent 

Subsitute of Trustee and all efforts at securitization. (See Fontaine I, ECF No. 79

at 3-5 (summarizing FAC)). The amended complaint further alleged that “this 

misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by the Defendants” slandered title 

to Plaintiff’s property. (Fontaine I, ECF No. 79 at 5). The presiding court denied 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint. (Fontaine I, 

ECF No. 90). Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. (Fontaine I, 

ECF No. 103). Plaintiff appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s 

decision. (Fontaine I, ECF No. 106). 

In 2017, Plaintiff filed another Complaint in the Southern District of 

California against BONY concerning the same property, loan, and foreclosure 

proceedings at issue in this case. See Fontaine v. Bank of New York Mellon, 

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
6

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

Case No. 17-cv-2424-MMA-JLB (hereinafter, Fontaine II) (See generally ECF 

No. 1). Plaintiff’s allegations in Fontaine II included: (1) wrongful foreclosure; (2) 

violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) slander of title; 

(4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) declaratory judgment. (Id.)

The Court held that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata because the 

presiding district court in Fontaine I had dismissed claims “based on the same 

transactional nucleus of facts” underlying the 2017 action. Id. at 17-cv-2424-

MMA-JLB. The case was closed on March 28, 2018. (Fontaine II, ECF No. 16). 

Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on December 11, 2018. (Compl.). 

Defendant BOA moved to dismiss the Complaint on January 10, 2019 and 

submitted a request for judicial notice (“RJN”) that same date. (ECF No. 3). On 

January 30, 2019, BONY submitted a Notice of Joinder and joined BOA’s Motion 

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff timely opposed the Motion 

to Dismiss and did not object to BONY’s Notice of Joinder. (ECF No. 12). 

IV. DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that each of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata 

and the applicable statute of limitations. (ECF No. 3). Defendants assert that 

Plaintiff signed the original note and deed of trust, and she cannot now claim she 

didn’t sign for the original loan or that foreclosure rights are void because of 

allegedly forged copies. (ECF No. 3). Defendants further assert that Plaintiff has 

not stated a claim for fraud because she has not and cannot sufficiently allege 

reliance on the purported forgeries. (ECF No. 3 at 13). Plaintiff argues her 

Complaint is not barred by res judicata or the applicable statute of limitations 

because she only became aware of Defendants’ fraud in August 2018 and 

confirmed the forgeries in October 2018, upon receipt of the Baggett Report. 

(ECF No. 12 at 16). She also asserts that although she “is not relying on any 

representations” that she had “borrowed the loan,” she did rely “on the 

representation that the documents received from Defendant were copies of the 

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
7

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

documents originally signed.” (ECF No. 12 at 14 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 32-33)). 

A. Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata “bars relitigation of all grounds of recovery that 

were asserted, or could have been asserted, in a previous action between the 

parties, where the previous action was resolved on the merits.” United States ex 

rel. Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 147 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 1998). “It is immaterial 

whether the claims asserted subsequent to the judgment were actually pursued 

in the action that led to the judgment; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether they 

could have been brought.” Id.

There are three elements to a successful res judicata defense: (1) an 

identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) privity between the 

parties. United States v. Liquidators of European Federal Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 

1139, 1150 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Here, the parties do not dispute that the second and third elements are 

met. The 2014 and 2017 actions both constituted final judgments on the merits. 

The 2014 action named both BOA and BONY as Defendants, and the 2017 

action named BONY. There was therefore privity between the parties. The 

dispute thus turns on whether the claims are identical. 

In deciding the identity of claims, the Ninth Circuit has applied four criteria:

(1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would 

be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) 

whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two 

actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same 

right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same 

transactional nucleus of facts.

Constantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982) 

(quoting Harris v. Jacobs, 621 F.2d 341,434 (9th Cir. 1980)). “The fourth 

criterion – the same transactional nucleus of facts – is the most

important.” Liquidators, 630 F.3d at 1151. Accordingly, “[n]ewly articulated 

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
8

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

claims based on the same nucleus of facts may still be subject to 

a res judicata finding if the claims could have been brought in the earlier 

action.” Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 

F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003). 

For many of the same reasons that the presiding court held res judicata 

applied in the 2017 action, the Court concludes res judicata bars the instant 

action. (See Fontaine II). Plaintiff’s claims are all based on the same 

transactional nucleus of facts as the 2014 and 2017 actions. See Liquidators, 

630 F.3d at 1151. In those previous actions, Plaintiff challenged the validity of 

the Deed of Trust, Substitutions of Trustees, and Defendants’ security interests in 

the Property. Drawing on the same facts concerning the property, transfers, and 

recordings, Plaintiff alleged the same claims asserted here: wrongful foreclosure 

under §§ 2924(a) and 2943(a), slander of title, intentional infliction of emotional 

distress, and declaratory relief.

Although Plaintiff adds new evidence to support two new claims—fraud 

under § 1572 and unjust enrichment—these additions are unavailing. Plaintiff 

argues she was ignorant of the fact that her signatures had been forged until 

August 2018, when she “noticed some of her signatures did not look right,” and 

obtained an opinion from a purported expert confirming that the documents were 

forgeries on October 29, 2018. (ECF No. 17 at 3). But Plaintiff began challenging 

the assignment of rights and foreclosure proceedings as early as 2012 or 2013, 

and could have examined the documents and challenged the signatures on them 

then. (See RJN Exhs. 7, 9). This claim could have easily been brought in the 

earlier actions. See Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d at 1078. 

Moreover, the new evidence does not support a legal claim. Plaintiff 

admits she signed the original loan documents, and cites no authority for the 

proposition that the alleged forgeries of her signature on copies of the loan 

documents constitutes fraud and bars foreclosure on the property. Plaintiff’s

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
9

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

reexamination of the loan documents previously held to be valid, and efforts to 

prove her signature was forged on the copies but not the original, is merely a 

reintroduction of “substantially the same” evidence as that presented in the 2014 

and 2017 actions. See Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs-Emp’rs Constr. Indus. 

Pension Welfare and Training Trust Funds v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 

1993) (stating the “fact that some different evidence may be presented in this 

action . . . does not defeat the bar of res judicata”). 

The Court further concludes that the rights and interests established in 

Fontaine I and Fontaine II would be destroyed or impaired by the prosecution of 

this action. In both actions, the Court entered judgment in Defendants’ favor. 

(Fontaine I, ECF No. 91 (BOA and BONY); Fontaine II, ECF No. 15 (BONY)). As 

in Fontaine I and Fontaine II, Plaintiff seeks invalidation of Defendants’ security 

interests on her Property, declaratory judgment, and damages. Plaintiff cannot 

assert the same claims and seek the same relief against BOA and BONY without 

impairing the rights and interests established in Fontaine I and Fontaine II. 

Finally, the suits involve infringement of the same right: Defendants’ allegedly 

wrongful foreclosure on Plaintiff’s property and Plaintiff’s alleged right to have her 

mortgage loan legitimately assigned. (See Fontaine II at 10). 

Given the foregoing, the Court concludes that all the claims brought in 

Fontaine I, Fontaine II, and this action “can be conveniently tried together.” Karr, 

994 F.2d at 1430. Plaintiff draws from the same common nucleus of operative 

fact in Fontaine I and Fontaine II to assert that her mortgage documents were 

improperly assigned and foreclosure is wrongful. The new evidence presented is 

not actually new, and draws from the same mortgage documents that Plaintiff 

sought to invalidate in a series of other suits. The Court concludes the claims of 

Fontaine I, Fontaine II, and the instant action are identical, and res judicata bars 

Plaintiff’s suit. Because res judicata bars Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety, the 

Court does not reach Defendants’ other arguments urging dismissal. 

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
10

18-cv-2795-BTM-RBB

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

V. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata. The Court GRANTS the Motion 

to Dismiss with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 9, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02795-BTM-RBB Document 18 Filed 07/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10