Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01998/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01998-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD F. CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

PREMIER ONE FUNDING, INC.,

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,

INC., DOES 1 through 50,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:09-cv-1998 OWW GSA

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE 

Defendants’ Response to

Complaint Filing Deadline:

4/5/10

Plaintiff’s Scheduling

Conference Statement Filing

Deadline: 4/9/10

Further Scheduling

Conference: 4/16/10 8:15

Ctrm. 3

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

March 25, 2010.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Bernard F. Clark appeared in pro se via telephone

conference. 

 Severson & Werson by Philip Barilovits, Esq., appeared via

telephone conference on behalf of Defendants Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc., ReconTrust Company, and Bank of American, N.A.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit relating to a defaulted

1

Case 1:09-cv-01998-OWW -JLT Document 23 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 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

mortgage loan, claiming that a variety of Defendants breached

various state and federal statutes and committed various torts. 

Although it is difficult to ascertain in many instances exactly

what Plaintiff is alleging, he seems to allege that no

foreclosure can take place because no Defendant has the original

note (Compl., ¶ 12); that he should not have been given the loan

due to his financial abilities (id., ¶¶ 28, 85); that he did not

really have time to read the loan documents at the time of the

origination (id., ¶¶ 81-86); and that the nationwide mortgage

industry is in crisis (id., ¶¶ 67-72). 

2. As set forth in Defendants’ motion to dismiss and

supporting documents, on or about July 26, 2007, Plaintiff

obtained a mortgage loan from First Magnus Financial Corp. in the

amount of $360,000 (the “Mortgage Loan”). Request for Judicial

Notice filed in Support of Motion to Dismiss (“RJN”), Ex. A (Deed

of Trust). The Mortgage Loan was secured by the property at

12689 Mt. Jefferson Street, Groveland, California. Id. The Deed

of Trust on the property states that the “Note or a partial

interest in the Note (together with this Security Interest) can

be sold one or more times without prior notice to the Borrower.” 

Id., ¶ 20. 

3. In addition, Plaintiff explicitly agreed to have

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), act as

the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust. The agreement provides

that “if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee

for Lender and Lender’s successor and assigns) has the right: to

exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not

limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property....” 

2

Case 1:09-cv-01998-OWW -JLT Document 23 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 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

Id., p. “3 of 15.”

4. After Plaintiff defaulted on his mortgage, a Notice of

Default was recorded in Tuolumne County on January 27, 2009. 

RJN, Ex. B. Along with the Notice of Default was filed a

declaration, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5, stating that

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”), which had been

assigned the loan, (Compl., ¶ 12) had tried with due diligence to

contact the borrower in accordance with that statute. Id. When

the default was not cured, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale was

recorded on May 1, 2009. RJN, Ex. C. On the same date, a

substitution of trustee naming ReconTrust Company was filed in

Tuolumne County. RJN, Ex. D.

5. Defendants do not believe Plaintiff has stated a single

valid claim and request that the entire complaint be dismissed

without leave to amend. 

IV. Further Scheduling Conference. 

1. It has been explained that Mr. Clark was unable to

communicate with Defendants for this conference. Accordingly, he

shall have an additional 15 days to provide his input to the

Joint Scheduling Report. 

2. Mr. Clarke’s submission shall be on or before April 9,

2010. This Scheduling Conference is continued to April 16, 2010,

at 8:15 a.m. The parties may appear telephonically. 

3. It is further ordered that the Defendants shall have

through and including April 5, 2010, to file a response to the

Complaint. 

3

Case 1:09-cv-01998-OWW -JLT Document 23 Filed 03/26/10 Page 3 of 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01998-OWW -JLT Document 23 Filed 03/26/10 Page 4 of 4