Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00123/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00123-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property 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 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial, and the 1

case was reassigned to the undersigned on May 31, 2007.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONELL GLEN STETLER, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING )

INC., PATRICK MITCHELL, )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:07cv0123 DLB

ORDER DENYING GREENPOINT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document 14)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (“Greenpoint”) filed the instant motion to

dismiss on June 25, 2007. The matter was heard on August 17, 2007, before the Honorable

Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Randall Rumph appeared on behalf of Plaintiff 1

Donell Glen Stetler (“Plaintiff”). Ted Buell appeared on behalf of Greenpoint.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on January 22, 2007. He names Greenpoint and

Patrick Mitchell (“Mitchell”) as Defendants and alleges causes of action under the Real Estate

Settlement Procedure Act (“REPSA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on March 28, 2007. Plaintiff borrowed

funds from Greenpoint on January 26, 2006, pursuant to two loan agreements secured by

Case 1:07-cv-00123-DLB Document 22 Filed 08/27/07 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

2

residential real property. The transactions at issue took place in Kern County, and the loans are

secured by property located in Kern County. In the first cause of action for violation of the

REPSA Antikickback provision, 12 U.S.C. § 2607, Plaintiff alleges that Greenpoint paid

Mitchell “a fee, kickback or thing of value related to making the loans.” In the second cause of

action, Plaintiff alleges that Mitchell breached his fiduciary duties by failing to inform Plaintiff

that he was obtaining money from Greenpoint, failing to inform Plaintiff that the loan was a

reverse amortization loan or that the payments increased, informing Plaintiff that the loans were

used on all his properties, and informing him that they were the best deal. In the third cause of

action for constructive fraud, Plaintiff alleges that Mitchell intentionally failed to disclose that he

was receiving funds from escrow by Greenpoint and that the loan was a reverse amoritization

loan. In the fourth cause of action for violation of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act,

Plaintiff alleges that the required settlement statement failed to disclose that Mitchell would be

receiving funds from escrow. Plaintiff seeks statutory, exemplary and punitive damages as well

as attorneys’ fees and costs.

Defendant Mitchell filed his answer on May 10, 2007. 

On June 25, 2007, Greenpoint filed the instant motion to dismiss the FAC. Although

Greenpoint moves to dismiss itself from all causes of action, Plaintiff states in his July 10, 2007,

opposition that Greenpoint is only named in the first cause of action. Greenpoint filed its reply

on August 10, 2007. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Legal Standard

Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim may

be granted if the cause of action lacks a cognizable legal theory or there is an absence of

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901

F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the

court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex

Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to

the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor. Jenkins v.

Case 1:07-cv-00123-DLB Document 22 Filed 08/27/07 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

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh'g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969), Parks School of Business, Inc.

v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480 1484 (9th Cir. 1995). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts

in support of the claim that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S.

69, 73 (1984)(citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Greenpoint’s motion to dismiss is based on its argument that the only allegation against

it, that it violated REPSA by “paying Mitchell a fee, kickback, or thing of value relating to the

making of the Loans,” is a vague, ambiguous and conclusory allegation that fails to state a claim

against it. FAC, at 2. 

While Greenpoint titles its motion as a motion to dismiss, it actually seeks a more definite

statement and confirmed as much as the hearing. Although Plaintiff argues that the FAC is

compliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the single, conclusory allegation does not

provide sufficient information to provide Greenpoint with the facts and circumstances of the

events at issue. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Greenpoint’s motion to dismiss without prejudice but

ORDERS Plaintiff to file Second Amended Complaint providing a more definite statement as to

the First Cause of Action within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00123-DLB Document 22 Filed 08/27/07 Page 3 of 3