Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02874/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02874-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

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 

BY t 

FILED' 

APR 10 lOll 

~u... COURT 

IOU'IIEMI"-III 

" 

,f THVUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAMIA SABHERWAL; DONALD T.H. 

SMITH, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 

For the Certificate holders ofCWALT, 

Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2005-62, 

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 

2005-62 formerly known as the Bank of 

New York; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; 

RECONSTRUCT COMPANY, N.A.; 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; 

REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS; DOES 1 

through 10 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

HAYES, Judge: 

CASE NO. llcv2874-WQH-BGS 

ORDER 

The matters before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendant OCWEN 

Loan Servicing, LLC (ECF No.4), Real Time Resolutions (ECF No.7), and Bank ofAmerica, 

N .A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Reconstruct Company, N .A., and Bank 

ofNew York Mellon (ECF No.8). 

I. Background 

OnNovember 3,2011, Plaintiffs Ramia Sabherwal and Donald T .H. Smith initiated this 

action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court ofCalifornia for the County ofSan Diego. 

- 1 - Ilcv2874-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 17 Filed 04/10/12 Page 1 of 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 

(ECF No.1). On December 8, 2011, the matter was removed to this Court. 

On December 13,2011, Defendant OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen") filed a 

Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.4). Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (ECF No. 10), and Ocwen 

filed a Reply (ECF No. 13). 

On December 15, 2011, Real Time Resolutions ("Real Time") filed a Motion to 

Dismiss. (ECF No.7). Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (ECF No. 11), and Real Time filed a 

Reply (ECF No. 16). 

On December 15, 2011, Defendants Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank of America"), 

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), Reconstruct Company, N.A. 

("Reconstruct"), and the Bank of New York Mellon for the Certificate holders ofCWALT, 

Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2005-62, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2005-62 formerly 

known as the Bank of New York ("Mellon") filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.8). 

Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (ECF No. 12), and Defendants Bank of America, MERS, 

Reconstruct, and Mellon filed a Reply (ECF No. 15). 

II. Allegations of the Complaint 

Plaintiffs asserts six "complaints for declaratory relief' against Defendants Ocwen, Real 

Time, Bank of America, MERS, Reconstruct, and Mellon regarding loans made for real 

properties located at 7891 Laurelridge Road in San Diego, California (Loan # 1 and Loan #2), 

1390 Vegas Valley Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada (Loan #3 and Loan #4), and 9616 Gunsmith 

Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada (Loan #5 and Loan #6). For each ofthe loans on these properties, 

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are "required under the Uniform Commercial Code ["UCC"] 

to establish any of the claimed rights to payment" and to "present the original notes" upon 

request by Plaintiffs. (ECF No.1 at 19; see also 22-23,26,31,35, 39). 

In first claim for declaratory relief, regarding Loan # 1 for 7891 Laurelridge Road, 

Plaintiffs allege that there is a dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the rights 

and duties on the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Mellon is not the current successor 

to the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Mellon was required to "document its claimed 

ownership" ofthe note ofdeed oftrust and "present the original notes" to Plaintiffs on demand 

- 2- Ilcv2874-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 17 Filed 04/10/12 Page 2 of 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 

pursuant to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the uee. [d. at 40-41. 

Plaintiffs allege that Mellon has demanded payment on the note of deed of trust, but 

"Plaintiffls] dispute[] the Defendant is entitled to receive any payments whatsoever." [d. at 

41. Plaintiffs allege that they have received a notice of default, notice of intent to sell, and 

notice of trustee's sale by Mellon, but Plaintiffs do "not believe the Defendants, complete 

strangers to the Plaintiffl s] lacking any privity of contract with the Plaintiffl s], ha[ ve] a legal 

right to record any instrument. .. against the property." [d. at 42. 

In the second claim for declaratory relief, regarding Loan #2 for 7891 Laurelridge Road, 

Plaintiffs allege that there is a dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the rights 

and duties on the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Doe 1 is not the current successor 

to the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Mellon was required to "document its claimed 

ownership" ofthe note ofdeed oftrust and "present the original notes" to Plaintiffs on demand 

pursuant to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the uee. [d. at 48. 

Plaintiffs allege that Doe 1 has demanded payment on the note ofdeed oftrust, but "Plaintiffl s] 

dispute[] that the Defendant is entitled to receive any payments whatsoever." [d. at 49. 

Plaintiffs allege that they have received a notice of default, notice of intent to sell, and notice 

oftrustee , s sale by Doe 1, but Plaintiffs do "not believe the Defendants, complete strangers to 

the Plaintiffl s] lacking any privity ofcontract with the Plaintiffl s], ha[ ve] a legal right to record 

any instrument. .. against the property." [d. at 50. 

In the third claim for declaratory relief, regarding Loan #3 for 1390 Vegas Valley Drive, 

Plaintiffs allege that there is a dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the rights 

and duties on the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Mellon is not the current successor 

to the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Mellon was required to "document its claimed 

ownership" ofthe note ofdeed oftrust and "present the original notes" to Plaintiffs on demand 

pursuant to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the uee. [d. at 55-56. 

Plaintiffs allege that Mellon has demanded payment on the note of deed of trust, but 

"Plaintiffls] dispute[] the Defendant is entitled to receive any payments whatsoever." [d. at 

56. Plaintiffs allege that they have received a notice of default, notice of intent to sell, and 

- 3 - Ilcv2874-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 17 Filed 04/10/12 Page 3 of 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 

notice of trustee's sale by Mellon, but Plaintiffs do "not believe the Defendants, complete 

strangers to the Plaintiffl s] lacking any privity ofcontract with the Plaintiffl s], ha[ ve] a legal 

right to record any instrument. .. against the property." Id. at 57. 

In the fourth claim for declaratory relief, regarding Loan #4 for 1390 Vegas Valley 

Drive, Plaintiffs allege that there is a dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the 

rights and duties on the note of deed of trust. Plaintiffs allege that Doe 2 is not the current 

successor to the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Doe 2 was required to "document 

its claimed ownership" ofthe note ofdeed oftrust and "present the original notes" to Plaintiffs 

on demand pursuant to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the uee. Id. 

at 62-63. Plaintiffs allege that Doe 2 has demanded payment on the note ofdeed oftrust, but 

"Plaintiffls] dispute[] the Defendant is entitled to receive any payments whatsoever." Id. at 

63. Plaintiffs allege that they have received a notice of default from Doe 2, but Plaintiffs do 

"not believe the Defendants, complete strangers to the Plaintiffl s] lacking any privity of 

contract with the Plaintiff[s], ha[ve] a legal right to record any instrument ... against the 

property." Id. at 64. 

In the fifth claim for declaratory relief, regarding Loan #5 for 9616 Gunsmith Drive, 

Plaintiffs allege that there is a dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the rights 

and duties on the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Doe 3 is not the current successor 

to the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Doe 3 was required to "document its claimed 

ownership" ofthe note ofdeed oftrust and "present the original notes" to Plaintiffs on demand 

pursuant to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the uee. Id. at 69. 

Plaintiffs allege that Doe 3 has demanded payment on the note ofdeed oftrust, but "Plaintiffl s] 

dispute[] the Defendant is entitled to receive any payments whatsoever." Id. at 70. Plaintiffs 

allege that they have received a notice ofdefault, notice ofintent to sell, and notice oftrustee' s 

sale by Doe 3, but Plaintiffs do "not believe the Defendants, complete strangers to the 

Plaintiff[s] lacking any privity of contract with the Plaintiffl s], ha[ ve] a legal right to record 

any instrument... against the property." Id. at 71. 

In the sixth claim for declaratory relief, regarding Loan #6 for 9616 Gunsmith Drive, 

- 4- Ilcv2874-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 17 Filed 04/10/12 Page 4 of 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 

Plaintiffs allege that there is a dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the rights 

and duties on the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Doe 4 is not the current successor 

to the note ofdeed oftrust. Plaintiffs allege that Doe 4 was required to "document its claimed 

ownership" ofthe note ofdeed oftrust and "present the original notes" to Plaintiffs on demand 

pursuant to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the DCC. ld. at 76-77. 

Plaintiffs allege that Doe 4 has demanded payment on the note ofdeed oftrust, but "Plaintifil s] 

dispute[] the Defendant is entitled to receive any payments whatsoever." ld. at 77. Plaintiffs 

allege that they have received a notice ofdefault, notice ofintent to sell, and notice oftrustee's 

sale by Doe 4, but Plaintiffs believe "that the Defendant is not the true owner and/or holder of 

the Note and ... the Defendants have no right to conduct any sale." Id. at 78. 

III. Discussion 

Defendant Ocwen contends that Plaintffs' allegations are vague and conclusory, and 

that "Ocwen cannot intelligently respond" to the meritless, "naked assertions" contained in the 

Complaint. (ECF No. 4-1 at 6). Defendant Real Time contends that Plaintiffs' Complaint is 

"vague, ambiguous, and poorly pled," and "fails to allege a single actionable claim against 

Defendant Real Time Resolutions." (ECFNo. 7-1 at 3). DefendantsBankofAmerica,MERS, 

Reconstruct, and Mellon contend that "Plaintiffs' general and conclusory allegations do not 

state a judicable claim for relief." (ECF No.8 at 2). 

Plaintiffs contend that they have '''filed a simple cause of action for declaratory relief' 

and "have fully complied with the statutory pleading requirements of a cause of action for 

declaratory relief." (ECF No. 10 at 6, 16; ECF No. 11 at 5, 15; ECF No. 12 at 5, IS). 

Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)( 6) permits dismissal for "failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 

8(a) provides: "A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain 

statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal 

theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep't, 901 F .2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

- 5 - llcv2874-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 17 Filed 04/10/12 Page 5 of 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 

To sufficiently state a claim to relief and survive a Rule 12(b )(6) motion, a complaint 

"does not need detailed factual allegations" but the "[t]actual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speCUlative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

555 (2007). "[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' ofhis 'entitle[ment] to relief' 

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a fonnulaic recitation ofthe elements ofa cause 

of action will not do." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). When considering a motion to 

dismiss, a court must accept as true all "well-pleaded factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). However, a court is not "required to accept as 

true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable 

inferences." Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); see, e.g., 

Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 683 (9th Cir. 2009) ("Plaintiffs' general 

statement that Wal-Mart exercised control over their day-to-day employment is a conclusion, 

not a factual allegation stated with any specificity. We need not accept Plaintiffs' unwarranted 

conclusion in reviewing a motion to dismiss."). "In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion 

to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, 

must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. u.s. Secret 

Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). 

California Code ofCivil Procedure section 1060 provides: 

Any person interested under a written instrument ... or under a contract, 

or who desires a declaration ofhis or her rights or duties with respect 

to ... property ... may, in cases ofactual controversy relating to the legal 

rights and duties ofthe respective parties, bring an original action ... in 

the superior court for a declaration ofhis or her rights and duties in the 

premises, including a detennination ofany question ofconstruction or 

validity arising under the instrument or contract. He or she may ask for 

a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with other relief; and 

the court may maKe a binding declaration ofthese rights or duties .... 

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1060. "A complaint for declaratory relief is legally sufficient ifit sets 

forth facts showing the existence ofan actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties 

ofthe respective parties under a contract and requests that these rights and duties be adjudged 

by the court." Browning v. Aymard, 224 Cal. App. 2d 277, 280 (1964); see also Ball v. 

FleetBoston Financial Corp., 164 Cal. App. 4th 794,800 (2008) ("Code of Civil Procedure 

- 6 - llcv2874-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 17 Filed 04/10/12 Page 6 of 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 

section 1060 permits an original action, and authorizes a claim for declaratory relief to be filed 

alone .... ") (quotation omitted) "It is not essential, to entitle a plaintiff to seek declaratory relief, 

that he should establish his right to a favorable declaration." Browning, 224 Cal. App. 2d at 

280; see also Shepherd v. Paul A. Hauser, Inc., 138 Cal. App. 384, 387-88 (1934). 

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that an actual controversy exists as to the legal rights and 

duties ofthe parties regarding loans on certain property. Plaintiffs make conclusory allegations 

that they do not believe that Defendants have any rights to the property. Plaintiffs make 

conclusory allegations that the implied covenant ofgood faith and fair dealing and the Uniform 

Commercial Code require Defendants to produce the original note and document their claim 

to ownership before demanding payment from Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiffs fail to allege 

specific facts "more than labels and conclusions." Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege "[f]actual allegations [that] raise a 

right to relief above the speCUlative level." Id. In addition, Plaintiffs have failed to allege any 

factual allegations regarding Defendants OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC, Real Time 

Resolutions, Bank of America, N .A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and 

Reconstruct Company, N .A. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient 

facts to show that they are entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

IV. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant OCWEN 

Loan Servicing, LLC (ECF No.4), the Motion to Dismiss filed by Real Time Resolutions 

(ECF No.7), and the Motion to Dismiss filed by Bank ofAmerica, N.A., Mortgage 

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Reconstruct Company, N.A., and the Bank ofNew 

York Mellon (ECF No.8) are GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiffs may 

file a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint, accompanied by a proposed First 

Amended Complaint, within thirty days from the date ofthis order. 

Dated: 'fi!Jv 

- 7 - Ilcv2874-WQH-BGS 

Case 3:11-cv-02874-WQH-BGS Document 17 Filed 04/10/12 Page 7 of 7