Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06865/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06865-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SALVADOR AGREDANO, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 18-cv-06865-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 55 

This is the second round of briefing on the complaint filed by pro se plaintiff Salvador 

Agredano against defendants Capital One, N.A. (“Capital One”) and Real Time Resolutions, Inc. 

(“Real Time”). On April 11, 2019, the Court entered an order granting defendants’ motions to 

dismiss with leave to amend, except insofar as his claims were based on the allegation that 

GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (“GreenPoint”) was not a legally active corporation at the 

time it assigned its interest in plaintiff’s debt to Real Time. (Dkt. No. 50 (“Order”) at 15.) On 

May 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, re-alleging causes of action for (1) violation 

of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2605; (2) violation of the 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692; (3) fraud; and (4) 

misrepresentation. (Dkt. No. 51 (“FAC”), ¶¶ 14–49.)1

Having carefully considered the pleadings in this action and the papers submitted,2 the 

Court finds as follows: 

 1

 The factual background of this action is set forth in detail in the Court’s prior order. 

(Order at 2–3.) 

2

 Despite this Court’s instructions that plaintiff must comply with the Civil Local Rules 

(Order at 5, n.7), plaintiff improperly filed sur-replies as to both defendants’ motions. The Court 

once again advises plaintiff that no supplemental briefing should be filed absent compliance with 

Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

Case 4:18-cv-06865-YGR Document 69 Filed 07/16/19 Page 1 of 7
2 

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 Californi

a

1. RESPA Claim Against Real Time

In its prior order, the Court granted Real Time’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s RESPA 

claim on grounds that plaintiff (1) failed to plead actual harm causally connected to the alleged 

RESPA violations, and (2) failed to explain how Real Time’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s 

QWR caused any alleged harm. (Order at 7–9.)3

In his amended complaint, plaintiff newly alleges that he suffered actual damages because 

Real Time “reported incorrect information to the credit bureaus, which [] cause[d] [p]laintiff to be 

denied refinancing options on three separate occasions.” (FAC ¶ 21.) Although negative credit 

reports alone generally do not constitute actual damages for purposes of stating a RESPA claim, 

see Petrovich v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2015 WL 3561821, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2015), 

allegations that plaintiff was denied specific refinancing opportunities as a result of said credit 

reports suffices to show actual damages. See Anokhin v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, No. 

2:10-CV-00395, 2010 WL 3294367, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2010) (“To constitute actual 

damages, the negative credit rating must itself cause damage to the plaintiff as evidenced by, for 

example, failing to qualify for a home mortgage.”); Hutchinson v. Delaware Sav. Bank FSB, 410 

F.Supp.2d 374, 382 (D.N.J. 2006) (plaintiffs adequately alleged damages under RESPA where 

they alleged that defendants continued to report late payments to credit bureaus after receiving 

QWRs, damaging plaintiffs’ credit and precluding them from obtaining other loans); cf., 

Stoimenova v. Select Portfolio Servicing, No. 5:15-CV-01504-RMW, 2015 WL 4880943, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2015) (plaintiff failed to allege actual damages in support of RESPA claim 

where he did not “allege that he suffered actual pecuniary harm from the negative [credit] 

reporting”). 

Further, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, it is plausible that Real 

Time’s “fail[ure] to provide an accounting to justify the balance it claims [it] is owed” caused the 

 3

 The Court’s prior order also found that plaintiff had plausibly alleged that his letter to 

Real Time was a QWR and that Real Time had not responded to the QWR with the information 

requested. (Order at 6–7.) Because plaintiff has not meaningfully changed the allegations 

relevant to these findings, the findings still hold. 

Case 4:18-cv-06865-YGR Document 69 Filed 07/16/19 Page 2 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

alleged damages. For example, had Real Time timely and adequately responded to plaintiff’s 

QWR, plaintiff could have taken additional steps to correct any inaccuracies, thereby preventing 

Real Time from reporting allegedly incorrect information to credit bureaus. See Johnson v. HSBC 

Bank USA, Nat. Ass’n, 3:11-CV-2091-JM-WVG, 2012 WL 928433, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 

2012) (where plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to provide a substantive response to QWR, 

causing confusion over how much plaintiff actually owed, defendant’s failure to respond to the 

QWR plausibly caused harm).4

Thus, the Court finds that the allegations in the FAC are sufficient to state a RESPA claim 

against Real Time at this stage in the proceedings. Thus, Real Time’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s 

RESPA claim is DENIED. 

2. RESPA Claim Against Capital One

The Court’s prior order identified three specific deficiencies in plaintiff’s RESPA claim 

against Capital One: (1) Plaintiff failed to allege that Capital One was the servicer of the loan 

such that it would be obligated to respond to the QWR under RESPA; (2) plaintiff did not allege 

facts demonstrating how Capital One’s response to plaintiff’s QWR was insufficient; and (3) 

plaintiff failed to allege recoverable damages. (Order at 9–10.) 

 In the FAC, plaintiff cures the first deficiency by alleging that “Real Time and Capital One 

were servicers of the Loan within the meaning of RESPA.” (FAC ¶ 15.) Plaintiff does not, 

however, cure the second deficiency. Rather, plaintiff merely re-alleges the following in support 

of his RESPA claim against Capital One: 

On or about August 18, 2018, Plaintiff sent a written correspondence to Capital 

One constituting a “qualified written response” in an attempt to obtain a proper 

accounting of the funds paid towards the Mortgage. The qualified written request 

pertained to the servicing of the loan because it sought an accounting and 

 4

 RESPA provides that “[d]uring the 60-day period beginning on the date of the servicer’s 

receipt from any borrower of a qualified written request relating to a dispute regarding the 

borrower’s payments, a servicer may not provide information regarding any overdue payment, 

owed by such borrower and relating to such period or qualified written request, to any consumer 

reporting agency[.]” 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e)(3). Although the FAC is silent as to whether Real Time 

provided information to credit bureaus regarding an overdue payment, it is at least plausible that 

this provision may have been triggered by Real Time’s conduct.

Case 4:18-cv-06865-YGR Document 69 Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 7
4 

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 Californi

a

documentation to justify the balance that Real Time claims is owed on the 

Mortgage. Capital One did not provide a response until August 22, 2018. 

(FAC ¶ 18.) The FAC contains no other factual allegations regarding the substance of Capital 

One’s QWR response. Further, although plaintiff alleges that “Defendant [] failed to respond in a 

proper and timely way” to his QWRs and “the response was not responsive to the requests made 

by Plaintiff” (id. ¶ 20), plaintiff does not specify the defendant(s) to which these allegations apply, 

and in any event, such allegations, without more, are far too general to support the RESPA claim. 

 As to the third deficiency, that is, plaintiff’s failure to allege recoverable damages, plaintiff 

has supplemented his damages allegations to demonstrate a plausible theory of harm based on his 

loss of refinancing opportunities. (FAC ¶ 22.) However, without any explanation as to how 

Capital One’s QWR response was insufficient, plaintiff cannot link the alleged damages to any 

alleged misconduct by Capital One. 

 Given plaintiff’s failure to address the deficiencies set forth in the Court’s prior order, 

plaintiff appears unable to state a plausible RESPA claim against Capital One. Accordingly, this 

claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

3. FDCPA Claim Against Real Time5

In its prior order, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s FDCPA claim with prejudice to the extent 

it was based on the allegation that GreenPoint was not an active corporate entity at the time it 

transferred the debt to Real Time, and otherwise afforded plaintiff leave to amend. With respect to 

plaintiff’s theory that Real Time violated the FDCPA because the assignment of the Deed of Trust 

contained the forged signature of Miguel Romero, the Court noted that it was “unclear whether 

and how Mr. Romero’s alleged false signature would impact the transfer,” and accordingly, 

whether a claim existed. (Order at 11–12.) 

Although the FAC supplements the initial allegations regarding forgery by alleging that 

Mr. Romero is an agent of Real Time, and that a third party forged Mr. Romero’s signature at Real 

 5

 The Court’s prior order warned that “any amended complaint shall not assert an FDCPA 

claim against Capital One.” (Order at 12, n.14, emphasis in original.) The FAC does not appear 

to assert any such claims, and thus, the Court analyzes plaintiff’s FDCPA claim as against Real 

Time only. 

Case 4:18-cv-06865-YGR Document 69 Filed 07/16/19 Page 4 of 7
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Time’s direction, plaintiff still makes no attempt to explain the impact of the alleged forged 

signature on the transfer. Indeed, plaintiff’s allegations that Real Time directed someone to sign 

the assignment and ratified the transfer by attempting to collect on the loan undermine his theory 

that the alleged forged signature of a Real Time agent rendered the transfer fraudulent. 

 Further, the FAC re-alleges that Real Time violated the FDCPA when, on September 11, 

2018, Real Time called plaintiff, stated that he owed $73,000, and told him the only way to settle 

the debt was to pay the balance or to sell his home. (FAC ¶ 28.) In his opposition, plaintiff argues 

that Real Time had no authority to attempt to collect funds because the transfer of the debt was 

fraudulent. (Dkt. No. 62, at 8.) Plaintiff’s argument fails to persuade. Plaintiff bases his claim 

that the phone call violated the FDCPA on theories regarding GreenPoint’s corporate status and 

the forged signature. Because the court rejects these theories, plaintiff has not shown that the 

phone call constituted an FDCPA violation.6

 Despite having the opportunity to amend the complaint, plaintiff has not alleged any facts 

suggesting an FDCPA claim exists. Because further amendment would be futile, the Court 

DISMISSES plaintiff’s FDCPA claim WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

7

 6

 Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim also fails because it is not clear that Real Time was a “debt 

collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA. Under the FDCPA, “any person who offers or 

extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed” is a creditor, not a debt collector. 15 

U.S.C. § 1692a(4) (emphasis supplied). Further, “it is well-established that . . . a loan servicer is 

not a ‘debt collector’ under the FDCPA.” Okada v. Green Tree, No. C-10-0487 JCS, 2010 WL 

1573781, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2010) (citing cases); Morgan v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, No. C 

12-03827 CRB, 2012 WL 6096590, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2012) (noting that legislative history 

of the FDCPA “which highlights Congress’s intent to police the coercive, unrestrained activities 

of third party debt collectors as distinct from debt servicers”). Accepting as true plaintiff’s 

allegation that Real Time was a loan servicer required to respond to his QWR, plaintiff does not 

explain whether or when Real Time transitioned into a debt collection role. Moreover, because 

plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the transfer of the debt to Real Time was fraudulent, Real 

Time’s attempt to collect on its own debt would not render it a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. 

7

 Paragraph 25 of the FAC alleges that “Defendant Plunkett” is a debt collector within the 

meaning of the FDCPA statute. The FAC makes no other allegations as to “Defendant Plunkett,” 

nor is it clear to whom defendant is referring. Because the FAC elsewhere alleges that Real Time 

is a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA (FAC ¶ 16), the Court takes this allegation as 

true and does not render any findings as to the allegation regarding “Defendant Plunkett.” 

Case 4:18-cv-06865-YGR Document 69 Filed 07/16/19 Page 5 of 7
6 

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 Californi

a

4. Fraud and Misrepresentation Claims Against Both Defendants8

The Court previously dismissed plaintiff’s fraud and misrepresentation claims on the 

ground that plaintiff “fail[ed] to identify any recoverable damages and fail[ed] to allege how he 

actually and justifiably relied upon the misrepresentations or how any of the asserted damages 

were caused by the actions he took in reliance on the misrepresentations.” (Order at 13.) As 

discussed herein, plaintiff has adequately alleged that he suffered actual damages as a result of 

Real Time providing inaccurate reports to credit bureaus, which caused plaintiff to be denied three 

refinancing opportunities. (FAC ¶¶ 21–22.) However, plaintiff does not explain how these 

damages were caused by his reliance on any misrepresentations by Real Time or Capital One. 

In the FAC, plaintiff also alleges that “[e]very amount that Plaintiff paid towards the 

fraudulent loan balance reflects actual damages since Plaintiff paid money to a debt that did not 

actually exist.” (Id.) Plaintiff’s theories as to why the loan balance was “fraudulent” and “did not 

exist” cannot, however, support his fraud and misrepresentation claims, particularly under the 

stricter standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). First, as discussed herein, plaintiff’s 

allegations regarding GreenPoint’s corporate status and Mr. Romero’s forged signature do not 

support a finding that the loan transfer was fraudulent. Second, plaintiff’s contention that the 

September 11, 2018 phone call was improper is based on his allegations regarding GreenPoint’s 

corporate status and the forgery, and thus, fails for the same reasons. Third, with respect to 

plaintiff’s allegation that he was told he would owe $3,670.58 in closing costs on the debt, this 

Court previously instructed plaintiff to allege additional facts about this purported 

misrepresentation in order to support his claims. (Order at 14–15.) Plaintiff has not alleged any 

such additional facts. Fourth, plaintiff’s allegation that Real Time misrepresented “that RRACP 

Opportunity Trust is a separate entity to elude the questions regarding ownership of the debt at 

issue” again is based on his allegation that Real Time did not legally own the debt due to the 

 8

 Although the FAC, like the initial complaint, does not contain any allegations regarding 

fraud or misrepresentation as to Capital One, insofar as these causes of action could conceivably 

have been alleged against both defendants, the Court discusses these claims as asserted against 

Real Time and Capital One together. 

Case 4:18-cv-06865-YGR Document 69 Filed 07/16/19 Page 6 of 7
7 

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 Californi

a

fraudulent transfer, an allegation that this Court rejects. 

Even after amendment, plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible claim for fraud or 

misrepresentation, nor is it evident that such a claim exists. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES

plaintiff’s fraud and misrepresentation claims WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

***** 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) GRANTS the motions to dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE 

TO AMEND as to plaintiff’s RESPA claim against Capital One, FDCPA claim against Real Time, 

and fraud and misrepresentation claims against both defendants; and (2) DENIES the motion to 

dismiss plaintiff’s RESPA claim against Real Time. 

Accordingly, Capital One is hereby DISMISSED from this case. Real Time shall respond to 

plaintiff’s RESPA claim within fourteen (14) days of this order. Further, a Case Management 

Conference shall be set for Monday, August 26, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. in the Federal Building, 1301 

Clay Street, Oakland in Courtroom 1. 

In addition, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR Local Rule 2-3, the Court hereby 

REFERS this action to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Unit for a telephone conference 

to assess this case’s suitability for court-sponsored mediation, settlement conference, early neutral 

evaluation, or other ADR methods. The parties shall participate in a telephone conference, to be 

scheduled by the ADR Unit as soon as possible. The ADR Unit will notify the parties of the date 

and time the telephone conference will be held. After the telephone conference, the ADR Unit 

will advise the Court of its recommendation for further ADR proceedings. 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 52 and 55.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 16, 2019 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:18-cv-06865-YGR Document 69 Filed 07/16/19 Page 7 of 7