Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01689/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01689-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

1

19-CV-1689-CAB-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA KING aka PAMELA 

SCHIAVONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE 

FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION 

TRUST et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-1689-CAB-WVG

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS AND DISMISSING CASE 

WITH PREJUDICE

[Doc. Nos. 19, 20]

After removing this case from San Diego County Superior Court, Defendants U.S. 

Bank Trust, N.A., as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (“US Bank”), Summit 

Management Company, LLC (“Summit”), Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BoA”), and 

Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), (collectively 

“Defendants”) moved to dismiss the original complaint. [Doc. Nos. 3, 9.] The Court 

granted those motions and, notwithstanding the lack of a request from Plaintiff and the 

Court’s own skepticism that Plaintiff could remedy the deficiencies in the original 

complaint, granted Plaintiff leave to amend. On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed her first 

Case 3:19-cv-01689-CAB-WVG Document 26 Filed 12/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-CV-1689-CAB-WVG

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

amended complaint (“FAC”). [Doc. No. 18.] The FAC is virtually identical to the original 

complaint aside from several paragraphs of what would more aptly be described as legal 

argument than new allegations of fact. Thus, Defendants now move to dismiss the FAC 

for all of the deficiencies outlined in the Court’s original dismissal order. [Doc. Nos. 19, 

20.] The Court deems the motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and 

without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, 

the motions to dismiss the FAC are granted, and the FAC is dismissed with prejudice.

I. Legal Standard for Motions to Dismiss1

The familiar standards on a motion to dismiss apply here. To survive a motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 

as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Thus, 

the Court “accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the 

pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire 

& Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). On the other hand, the Court is 

“not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Nor is the Court “required to accept as 

true allegations that contradict exhibits attached to the Complaint or matters properly 

subject to judicial notice, or allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions 

of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 

(9th Cir. 2010). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory 

factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive 

of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 

(9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted).

 

1 The factual allegations in the FAC are identical to those in original complaint. Accordingly, the 

background provided in the Court’s order dismissing the original complaint is equally applicable here and 

will not be repeated.

Case 3:19-cv-01689-CAB-WVG Document 26 Filed 12/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-CV-1689-CAB-WVG

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

II. Discussion

Upon review of the motions and the FAC, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to 

remedy the deficiencies identified in the Court’s previous Order dismissing the complaint 

with leave to amend. [Doc. No. 15.] Indeed, as far as the Court can discern, the FAC adds 

no new factual allegations and is verbatim identical to the original complaint aside from 

some legal argument added to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the FAC. In her oppositions, 

Plaintiff appears to be relying on the same defective legal theories the Court previously 

held were unavailing and does not identify how the FAC offers any factual basis to 

convince the Court otherwise. As the Court previously stated, because the Deed of Trust 

gave MERS the authority to execute the September 2009 Assignment, the substitution of 

trustee to Recontrust Company and assignment of beneficial interest to BAC Home Loans 

Servicing, LP is not void based on the MERS foreclosure manual or Countrywide Bank’s 

lack of membership in MERS. Furthermore, whether US Bank had an interest in the note 

is irrelevant to its right to foreclose based on its beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to dismiss the FAC are GRANTED.

III. Disposition

As discussed above, the FAC does not remedy the deficiencies identified in the 

Court’s order dismissing the original complaint. Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss are GRANTED, and the FAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk 

of Court shall close this case.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01689-CAB-WVG Document 26 Filed 12/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3