Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01248/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01248-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Myra A. Pisano, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.;

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company;

American Brokers Conduit, Inc.; Quality

Loan Service Corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1248-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 22), plaintiff’s response

(doc. 23), and defendants’ reply (doc. 25). We also have before us plaintiff’s motion to strike

defendants’ reply (doc. 26), and defendants’ response (doc. 27).

Plaintiff asserts claims under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., as

a defense to a non-judicial foreclosure of her principal residence. She claims that defendants

solicited her to refinance her home, improperly qualified her for a loan, and extended credit

without properly disclosing the credit terms and otherwise failing to comply with the

disclosure requirements of the Truth in Lending Act. She also asserts state law claims of

breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of

fiduciary duty, defamation, civil conspiracy, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Case 2:09-cv-01248-FJM Document 30 Filed 08/18/09 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

1

Defendant American Brokers Conduit, Inc., is alleged to be the mortgage company

that originally processed the loan application and funded the loan. American Brokers

Conduit and defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation do not join the present motion to

dismiss and have not otherwise responded in this case. 

- 2 -

Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is the current trustee of the deed

of trust encumbering the property and defendant American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.,

is the current loan servicer for the note and deed of trust (collectively, “Movants”). Movants

now ask us to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, to expunge the notice of lis pendens, and

to dissolve our order granting injunctive relief (doc. 11), arguing that plaintiff has failed to

state a claim against them in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. They argue that

“all of the claims and facts alleged in the complaint relate to loan origination,” Motion at 2,

and that, because neither Deutsche Bank Trust, nor American Home Mortgage was involved

with the loan origination, they are not proper parties to this lawsuit.1

In addition to raising claims related to the loan origination, however, plaintiff also

raises claims related to incidents that occurred after the loan was in place. In her claims for

negligent misrepresentation (count 2), breach of fiduciary duty (count 5), and defamation

(count 7), plaintiff alleges that defendants advised her to stop making loan payments as a

prerequisite to creating a hardship qualification for a government-subsidized loan program,

thereby inducing her to default on her loan. She alleges that defendants then reported her late

payments to the major credit bureaus. Moreover, the Truth in Lending Act provides that any

claim for violation of the Act that may be brought against a creditor may also be maintained

against any assignee of such creditor “if the violation [of the Act] is apparent on the face of

the disclosure statement.” 15 U.S.C. § 1641(a). 

Movants ignore plaintiff’s response and instead argue for the first time in their reply

that (1) the Truth of Lending claims should be dismissed for lack of merit; (2) the

defamation, emotional distress, and civil conspiracy claims should be dismissed for pleading

defects; and (3) the remaining tort and contract claims should be dismissed for lack of

privity. Plaintiff moves to strike Movants’ reply or alternatively seeks leave to file a

Case 2:09-cv-01248-FJM Document 30 Filed 08/18/09 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 -

surreply, arguing that we should not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.

Generally, however, a motion to strike under Rule 12(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., is limited to

pleadings under Rule 7(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., (and not papers under Rule 7(b), Fed R. Civ. P.),

or a filing “prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order.” LRCiv

7.2(m)(1). Instead, the remedy here is that we will not consider issues raised for the first

time in a reply. Gadda v. State Bar of Cal., 511 F.3d 933, 937 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the sole argument presented in Movants’

motion to dismiss—that they are not proper parties to this action because plaintiff’s claims

relate solely to the loan origination—is without merit. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Movants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 22), and DENYING

plaintiff’s motion to strike (doc. 26). 

DATED this 18th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01248-FJM Document 30 Filed 08/18/09 Page 3 of 3