Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00070/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00070-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA SCHOENBART,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation

Trust, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORPORATION, CALIBER HOME

LOANS, INC., and DOES 1–20,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-00070 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND DISMISSING ACTION

INTRODUCTION

In this foreclosure dispute, an order dismissed plaintiff’s first amended complaint, but

allowed plaintiff to seek leave to file a second amended complaint. For the reasons stated

below, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

The history of this case has already been set forth in detail in a prior order (Dkt. No. 63). 

In brief, plaintiff Theresa Schoenbart obtained a $1.2 million loan from Washington Mutual

Bank, F.A. (“WAMU”) secured by a deed of trust in her property in Lafayette, California. 

Schoenbart has neither paid rent nor made any loan payments since 2008. 

Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation contends it became the trustee on the deed

through an extended chain of recorded assignments and seeks to conduct a trustee’s sale on

Schoenbart’s default following a prior assignee’s notice of Schoenbart’s default on her loan in

Case 3:16-cv-00070-WHA Document 71 Filed 09/14/16 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

2009. The chain of assignments can be traced from Quality back to JPMorgan Chase & Co.,

which assumed WAMU’s portfolio in 2008. Chase assumed that portfolio immediately from

the Federal Deposit Insurance Company was appointed as a receiver after WAMU collapsed in

2008. 

In her first amended complaint, Schoenbart alleged that before the FDIC received

WAMU’s portfolio, Schoenbart’s loan “was transferred to Washington Mutual Mortgage

Securities Corporation. The Note was then sold to an investment trust and WAMU ceased to be

the Lender or Beneficiary under the Note or Deed of Trust after December 31, 2007” (First

Amd. Compl. ¶ 13). Thus, Schoenbart contended Quality had no authority to execute a notice

of trustee’s sale on her home, because the chain of transmission starting with the FDIC and

Chase allegedly never included Schoenbart’s loan (id. ¶ 21).

A prior order granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint

because the only basis for asserting that WAMU securitized Schoenbart’s loan was based on a

“general business model and nothing more” (Dkt. No. 63 at 4). “Schoenbart offer[ed] no

specific factual basis for the assertion that WAMU bundled and sold her specific loan” (ibid.). 

That order allowed Schoenbart to move for leave to file an amended complaint with a motion

that “clearly explains how the amended complaint cures the deficiencies identified” (id. at 6). 

The order further required Schoenbart to deposit all loan payments that had come due since the

commencement of this action in December 2015 (totaling $56,000), stating that “small measure

of equity [would] be a precondition to consideration of the equity Schoenbart seeks from this

district court” (ibid.). 

Schoenbart now moves for leave to file a second amended complaint. The only new

allegation in her proposed second amended complaint that purports to support the conclusion

that WAMU securitized her loan is that it “securitized and sold [$]82,000,000,000.00 (82

billion dollars) of loans, which included Plaintiff’s loan” (Proposed Second Amd. Compl. ¶ 13). 

Schoenbart alleges no facts pertaining to the securitization of her loan in particular. Schoenbart

Case 3:16-cv-00070-WHA Document 71 Filed 09/14/16 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

also never tendered any amount of her loan payments. This order follows full briefing and oral argument.

ANALYSIS

Schoenbart has made no effort to cure the defects in her first amended complaint. She

relies entirely on background information about WAMU’s securitization business and offers no

factual allegations whatsoever to indicate that WAMU securitized her loan in particular. The

bare assertion that WAMU sold her loan is not entitled to the presumption of truth on a motion

to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009).

Schoenbart’s best point, raised for the first time in her reply brief, is that none of our

defendants has come forward with the promissory note for her loan. That allegation appears

nowhere in her proposed second amended complaint, and our defendants have never had any

obligation to come forward with the note at this stage. Moreover, as stated in the prior order

dismissing the first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 63 at 4): 

[I]f the loan had been sold to some unknown investor, surely that

investor should have surfaced and demanded payment when

Schoenbart defaulted eight years ago. That no one has selfidentified in these circumstances is convincing that no such

investor exists. (Had plaintiff alleged such a specific investor, then

the complaint would have been sustained.) 

 Schoenbart has not alleged a specific investor. The fact that no defendant has come forth with

the note is insufficient to rescue Schoenbart’s proposed amended complaint.

This order need not address Schoenbart’s failure to tender a single cent of the

outstanding loan payments that have accrued since she commenced this action, inasmuch as her

complaint still fails to state a plausible claim for relief anyway.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Schoenbart’s motion for leave to file a second amended

complaint is DENIED, and the action is hereby DISMISSED. Judgment will follow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00070-WHA Document 71 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 3