Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00083/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00083-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO CARIAS, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

LENOX FINANCIAL MORTGAGE

CORPORATION; LSI TITLE COMPANY; and

DOES 1 through 25,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-0083 SC

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT LENOX

FINANCIAL MORTGAGE

CORPORATION'S MOTION

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment by the defendant Lenox Financial Mortgage

Corporation ("Lenox" or "Defendant"). See Docket No. 36. 

Plaintiff Eduardo Carias filed an Opposition and Defendant

submitted a Reply. See Docket Nos. 61, 68. For the following

reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

Lenox, a loan broker, aired the following advertisement on

the radio: "If you're paying a single dime at closing when you

refinance your home or purchasing [sic] a new one, it's too much.

. . . We'll pay for your appraisal, title, escrow, everything. .

. ." Mot. at 2-3. Plaintiff heard this and refinanced his homeloan with Lenox. 

Case 3:07-cv-00083-SC Document 91 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

After discovering that the new loan was allegedly different

than what Lenox had promised, Plaintiff filed the present class

action in California state court, alleging breach of fiduciary

duty, violations of California's Business and Profession's Code,

fraud, and violation of the Federal Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2607. Defendants removed the case to

federal court. 

III. DISCUSSION

Entry of summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, the

discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c). "Summary judgment should be granted where the

evidence is such that it would require a directed verdict for the

moving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250

(1986). Thus, "Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment

. . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to

establish the existence of an element essential to that party's

case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In

addition, entry of summary judgment in a party's favor is

appropriate when there are no material issues of fact as to the

essential elements of the party's claim. Anderson, 477 U.S. at

247-49.

Defendant has moved for partial summary judgment on

Plaintiff's false advertising, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty

Case 3:07-cv-00083-SC Document 91 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

claims and on the issue of whether Defendant improperly charged

Plaintiff "closing costs." The Court finds that triable issues of

fact exist as to all of these claims and therefore denies

Defendant's Motion. 

IV. SCHEDULING

The Court hereby vacates the existing discovery cut-off date, 

the date for the last day for motions, the pre-trial date, and the

existing trial date. A new trial-setting conference is scheduled

for April 25, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom # 1 on the 17th

floor.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2008 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00083-SC Document 91 Filed 01/28/08 Page 3 of 3