Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-03102/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-03102-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY GRACE PURGANAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-03102-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 11

Pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mary Grace Purganan’s First 

Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 14 (“FAC”), filed by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (“Wells 

Fargo”). Dkt. No. 15. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral 

argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the following reasons, 

the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The operative First Amended Complaint, filed on June 21, 2018, alleges four causes of 

action under California and Federal law based on Defendant’s alleged mishandling of Plaintiff’s 

loan modification application. See Dkt. No. 14 (“FAC”). In 2007, Plaintiff obtained a $515,000 

mortgage secured by Plaintiff’s property located at 89 Muirwood Drive, Daly City, California 

94014 (the “Property”). FAC ¶¶ 1, 6–7. Defendant recorded a notice of default on Plaintiff’s 

mortgage in October 2015.1 Dkt. No. 12-1. On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a loan 

 

1 Defendant has requested that the Court take judicial notice of the Notice of Default. Dkt. No. 12. 

The Notice of Default is a publicly-recorded document, and the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 

unopposed request for judicial notice. See Jara v. Aurora Loan Servs., 852 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 

1205 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Jara v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 633 F. App'x 651 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (taking judicial notice of a notice of default); see also Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, 

Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908–909 (9th Cir. 

2003). The Court considers the representations within the judicially-noticeable materials as 

demonstrations of what Defendant understood at the time the representations were made. 

Case 4:18-cv-03102-HSG Document 31 Filed 01/31/19 Page 1 of 4
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 California

modification application to Defendant. FAC ¶ 8. Between that date and October 5, 2017, Plaintiff 

alleges that she submitted all documents in support of that loan modification requested by 

Defendant. Id. ¶¶ 9–10. Defendant recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale against the Property on 

October 11, 2017. Id. ¶ 10. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain 

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

defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “Dismissal 

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

sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 

521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads “factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts “accept factual allegations in the 

complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” 

Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Nonetheless, 

Courts do not “accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of 

fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 

2008).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Completeness

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of California Civil Code 

 

Case 4:18-cv-03102-HSG Document 31 Filed 01/31/19 Page 2 of 4
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 California

Sections 2924.11(a)2and 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(g), pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures 

Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et. seq., because Plaintiff “does not provide factual allegations to 

support her legal conclusion that she submitted a complete application to Defendant on October 5, 

2017.” Dkt. No. 15 at 5–6. 

California Civil Code section 1024.41(b)(1) states: “A complete loss mitigation application 

means an application in connection with which a servicer has received all the information that the 

servicer requires from a borrower in evaluating applications for the loss mitigation options 

available to the borrower.” 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(b)(1). The FAC alleges that Plaintiff “submitted 

all of the documents requested by Defendant within the time frame required.” FAC ¶ 10. Taking 

all allegations in the FAC as true, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the application submitted on 

October 5, 2017 was complete within the meaning of the statute.

B. Damages

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to plead any damages attributable to 

Defendant’s conduct. Dkt. No. 15 at 8–9. “Federal district courts have found sufficiently pled 

actual damages include the assertion of concrete harms caused by the RESPA violation itself, not 

harms generally resulting from a plaintiff's default and the foreclosure of his or her home.” 

Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal. App. 4th 497, 532 (2013), as modified (June 12, 

2013), and disapproved of on other grounds by Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 62 Cal. 4th 

919 (2016).

Plaintiff alleges damages including “the imminent loss of her property to foreclosure; an 

accumulation of late fees and additional charges on the loan account while Defendant mishandled 

the review; the loss of reputation and goodwill within the community, and extreme emotional 

distress.” FAC ¶ 33. Plaintiff has failed to plead damages resulting from the RESPA violation 

 

2 The FAC cites a version of section 2924.11 that was repealed as of December 31, 2018 and

amended such that it no longer applies to a notice of sale. Compare Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.11(a) 

(January 1, 2018) with Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.11(a) (January 1, 2019). Plaintiff’s claims brought 

under section 2924.11 are therefore DISMISSED. See Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, 

Inc., 169 Cal. App. 4th 1246, 1256 (2009) (“When a pending action seeks recovery based on a 

statutorily-based obligation, and that statutory provision is repealed by legislation not containing 

an express saving clause, the California courts have consistently concluded the pending actions 

should be abated.”).

Case 4:18-cv-03102-HSG Document 31 Filed 01/31/19 Page 3 of 4
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 California

and not from Plaintiff’s own default. See Jenkins, 216 Cal. App. 4th at 533 (Plaintiff’s allegations 

“fail[ed] to show her claimed damages for fees, negative credit reports, and emotional distress 

were plausibly incurred because of the alleged RESPA violation, and were not the consequences 

of her earlier default”). 

Likewise, because Plaintiff’s negligence and UCL causes of action rely on the same dualtracking allegations underlying Plaintiff’s RESPA claim, Plaintiff has not alleged damages 

attributable to Defendant’s unlawful conduct. See Graham v. Bank of Am., N.A., 226 Cal. App. 

4th 594, 614 (2014) (finding no causation for damages where the “prospect of losing the home to 

foreclosure [was] the result of default, not the alleged conduct of defendants”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss as to all claims. Any amendment must be made within 21 days of this order. The Court 

SETS a case management conference on March 12, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. The parties are directed to 

file a case management statement, including a proposed case schedule, on or before March 5, 

2019. Docket Number 11 is terminated as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/31/2019

Case 4:18-cv-03102-HSG Document 31 Filed 01/31/19 Page 4 of 4