Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04533/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04533-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

MARCI PATERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITIBANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04533-JSC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 42

Plaintiff Marci Patera brings this action against Defendants Citibank, N.A., and 

CitiMortgage, Inc. (together, “Defendants”) seeking to prevent foreclosure of her home. The 

Court previously granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted and for failure to join a necessary and indispensable party. (Dkt. No. 27.) 

Plaintiff thereafter filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and Defendants have renewed 

their motion to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 38 & 42.) Because Plaintiff has again failed to join Roy 

Bartlett, who as the co-borrower and co-owner of the subject party is a necessary and 

indispensable party, Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(7) is GRANTED. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, through counsel, filed the underlying action in October 2014 alleging 13 state law

claims against Defendants Citibank, N.A. and CitiMortgage including (1) deceit: promise made 

without intent to perform; (2) deceit: intentional misrepresentation; (3) fraud and deceit: 

suppression of material facts; (4) fraud and deceit: negligent misrepresentation; (5) negligence; (6) 

violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200; (7) promissory estoppel; (8) 

breach of contract; (9) breach of contract: October 2012 Modification Agreement; (10) slander of 

Case 3:14-cv-04533-JSC Document 59 Filed 05/26/15 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

title; (11) cancellation of instruments; (12) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act; and (13) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Dkt. No. 1.) On 

February 5, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion dismiss for failure to join a necessary and 

indispensable party and failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 27.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel thereafter moved to withdraw, which the Court granted. (Dkt. No. 35.) 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed her First Amended Complaint shortly thereafter. (Dkt. No. 38.) 

The FAC is 94 pages long and realleges nearly all the same causes of action as the initial 

complaint with three new causes of action. Plaintiff’s new claims are: for violation of 

California’s Homeowners Bill of Rights Sections 2923.6 and 2923.7, violation of the Equal Credit 

Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), and violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 

(“RESPA”). Defendants thereafter filed the now pending motion to dismiss, a motion to strike the 

new causes of action under ECOA and RESPA, and a request for judicial notice. (Dkt. Nos. 42, 

44 & 45.) Plaintiff thereafter filed a 46-page opposition to the motion to dismiss.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7), a party may move to dismiss a case 

for “failure to join a party under Rule 19.” Rule 19 imposes a three-step inquiry: (1) whether the 

absent party is necessary (i.e., required to be joined if feasible) under Rule 19(a); (2) if so, whether 

it is feasible to order that absent party to be joined; and (3) if joinder is not feasible, whether the 

case can proceed without the absent party, or whether the absent party is indispensable such that 

the action must be dismissed. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 

F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012). The burden is on the moving party to produce evidence in 

support of the motion. Id.; see also Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555, 558 (9th 

Cir.1990). 

DISCUSSION

The Court’s prior dismissal order concluded that Bartlett, as the co-borrower and co-owner 

of the subject property, was a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and ordered 

Plaintiff to join him as a party in any amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 27.) A party is required if “in 

that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties;” or “that 

Case 3:14-cv-04533-JSC Document 59 Filed 05/26/15 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

person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action” such that it would “impair or impede 

the person’s ability to protect the interest;” or “leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk 

of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 19(a); see also EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co., 400 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Here, the Deeds of Trust reveal that Plaintiff and Bartlett are both listed as co-borrowers. “[I]n an 

action to set aside a lease or contract, all parties who may be affected by the determination are 

indispensable.” Lomayaktewa v. Hathaway, 520 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1975). Further, 

Defendants would be at risk of multiple and potentially inconsistent obligations without Bartlett’s 

participation. See, e.g., Trinh v. Citibank, NA, No.12-CV-03902, 2012 WL 6574860, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Dec. 17, 2012) (concluding that joinder of plaintiff’s husband, the co-borrower, was required 

because the husband’s “absence from this action would necessarily impair his ability to protect his 

interest” where plaintiff sought a “declaration that the title to the Subject Property is vested in 

Plaintiff alone”); Edwards v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., No. C 12-04868, 2012 WL 

5503532, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012) (holding that the plaintiff’s husband, a co-borrower on 

the underlying loan, was a necessary and indispensable party because “Plaintiff’s interest in the 

Property and her claims asserted regarding the foreclosure are coterminous with [her husband’s] 

interest and claims. If [her husband] is not joined as a party, Defendants have a substantial risk of 

incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of Plaintiff’s and [her 

husband’s] mutual interests relating to the Property.”) The Court thus determined that Bartlett was 

a required party under Rule 19. 

In her FAC, Plaintiff does not allege any facts that would justify departing from the 

Court’s previous conclusion. Instead, Plaintiff contends that Bartlett has his own proceeding in 

state court and because neither he nor Citibank (who is represented by the same counsel as here) 

have sought to join her in that proceeding it is clear that “Defendants have determined that (a) the 

Court can afford complete relief in Patera’s absence without impairing Patera’s ability to protect 

her interest and (b) non-joinder of Patera would not subject Defendants to incurring multiple 

inconsistent obligations.” (FAC at ¶ 131.) In response, Defendants contend that at an April 22, 

2015 Case Management Conference in the Superior Court action “counsel represented to the Court 

Case 3:14-cv-04533-JSC Document 59 Filed 05/26/15 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

that Bartlett was seeking new counsel and intends on filing an amended complaint and joining 

Patera, whom he deemed a necessary party to the Bartlett action.” (Dkt. No. 55 at 6:28-7:3.) 

Neither party’s allegations change the Court’s prior conclusion that Bartlett is a required 

party under Rule 19. Regardless of what happens in state court, Bartlett—a co-borrower and coowner of the loan and property at issue in this lawsuit—is a necessary party to this action. 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is therefore granted. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED without 

prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) for failure to join a necessary and 

indispensable party. The Court will not, again, grant Plaintiff leave to amend as at oral argument 

she did not represent that Bartlett would join this lawsuit; instead, it appears that Plaintiff and 

Bartlett are in a dispute. It is a dispute they will have to resolve if they wish to pursue claims 

against Defendants arising from their jointly-obtained loan and jointly-owned house.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 42, 45, 48. 

The Clerk is ordered to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04533-JSC Document 59 Filed 05/26/15 Page 4 of 4