Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02795/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02795-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 - 09cv2795 WQH (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVITA PARTIDA and LEONARD

PARTIDA,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 09cv2795 WQH (WVG)

ORDER

vs.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.

et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9) filed by Defendants

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., California

Housing Finance Agency, BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., Bank of America Corporation,

and LandSafe, Inc.

 This case relates to Plaintiffs’ mortgage. On December 15, 2009, Plaintiffs initiated

this action by filing their complaint. (Doc. # 1). The complaint names Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”),

California Housing Finance Agency (“CHFA”), BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (“BAC”),

Bank of America Corporation (“BOA”), and LandSafe, Inc. (“Landsafe”) as Defendants. Id.

at 1. The complaint alleges five claims: (1) violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures

Act (“RESPA”); (2) violation of California Civil Code § 2943; (3) breach of contract and the

Case 3:09-cv-02795-WQH-WVG Document 23 Filed 05/10/10 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

1

 The caption of the complaint lists six claims, including “rescission of loan pursuant

to 15 U.S.C. § 1635),” but there are no allegations related to this claim in the complaint. See

id. at 1, 10-12. The complaint skips from the “Fourth Cause of Action” to the “Sixth Cause

of Action,” so the number assigned to each claim in this order does not match either the

caption on the complaint or the body of the complaint. See id. at 11-12.

- 2 - 09cv2795 WQH (WVG)

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) quiet title; (5) declaratory relief.1 Id. On

January 6, 2010, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 9). Additionally,

ReconTrust Company, N.A. (“Recontrust”), which was not named as a Defendant in the

caption of Plaintiffs’ complaint, states that it “is a moving party for purposes of the Motion to

Dismiss” because “ReconTrust is referenced in paragraph 4 of the Complaint” and “[i]t is

unclear from the Complaint whether or not Plaintiffs intended to include ReconTrust as a

defendant.” (Doc. # 9-1 at 5).

On February 16, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a their opposition to the motion. (Doc .# 17).

Plaintiffs attached a proposed First Amended Complaint to their opposition. (Doc. # 17-4).

Plaintiffs’ proposed First Amended Complaint alleges ten claims: (1) violation of California

Business and Professions Code § 17200; (2) violation of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”),

15 U.S.C. § 1635; (3) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e);

(4) violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., (5) violation of California Civil

Code § 1632; (6) fraud in the inducement; (7) wrongful foreclosure; (8) cancellation of first

trust deed; (9) quiet title; and (10) declaratory relief. Id. at 1. In their opposition, Plaintiffs

“respectfully ask[] that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or grant Plaintiffs

leave to amend their Complaint upon entry of the Order of the Court.” (Doc. # 17 at 22). 

On February 23, 2010, Defendants filed their reply in support of their Motion to

Dismiss. (Doc. # 18). Defendants contend “Plaintiffs implicitly admit that their original

Complaint was deficient, and that Defendants’ Motion should be granted.” Id. at 2. 

By attaching a proposed First Amended Complaint which abandons some of Plaintiffs’

original claims, adds new claims, and seeks to address some of the points raised by Defendants

in their motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs have conceded that there were deficiencies in their

original pleadings and have abandoned their original complaint. If the Court were to rule on

the Motion to Dismiss after Plaintiffs have made it clear that they wish to proceed under a

Case 3:09-cv-02795-WQH-WVG Document 23 Filed 05/10/10 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 - 09cv2795 WQH (WVG)

different complaint which asserts different claims, the Court would, in essence, offer an

advisory opinion as to the sufficiency of the original complaint. The Court instead construes

Plaintiffs’ opposition as a motion for leave to amend.

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that leave to amend “be freely

given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir.

2003) (quotation omitted). In Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), the Supreme Court

offered several factors for district courts to consider in deciding whether to grant a motion to

amend under Rule 15(a):

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason–such as undue delay, bad faith

or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies

by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by

virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.–the leave

sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182; see also Smith v. Pac. Prop. Dev. Co., 358 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th Cir.

2004) (citing Foman factors).

This is Plaintiffs’ first attempt to amend, and the Court sees no evidence at this early

stage of undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive. Therefore, the Court will allow Plaintiffs

to file the proposed First Amended Complaint attached to the opposition within ten days of the

date of this order. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9 ) is

DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs shall file the proposed First Amended Complaint attached

to their opposition (Doc. # 17-4) within ten days of the date of this order. 

DATED: May 10, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02795-WQH-WVG Document 23 Filed 05/10/10 Page 3 of 3