Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04784/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04784-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALLY FIGUEIREDO,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

AURORA LOAN, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-4784 BZ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“complaint”) under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to expunge a lis

pendens under California Code of Civil Procedure Section

405.31. The complaint fails to address several threshold

issues. Finding no need for oral argument, defendant’s motion

to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend IN PART and GRANTED

without leave to amend IN PART. Defendant’s motion to expunge

the lis pendens is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The complaint alleges five causes of action: (1)

violation of California Civil Code § 2923.5; (2) fraud; (3)

intentional misrepresentation; (4) violation of California

Case 3:09-cv-04784-BZ Document 37 Filed 03/15/10 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

1 As filed, plaintiff’s first amended complaint omits

pages 11-14. Doc. No. 20. Defendant’s motion does not address

any of the causes of action contained in the missing pages,

including the second and third causes of action. Plaintiff refiled the complete complaint after this motion was fully

briefed. Doc. No. 35. 

2

Civil Code § 2323.6; and (5) violation of California Civil

Code § 1572.1

 Plaintiff originally sought modification of a

mortgage secured by a piece of residential property. Since

plaintiff filed this complaint, the property has been sold at

a trustee’s sale.

Plaintiff’s first cause of action suffers from at least

one basic defect. Section 2923.5 of the Civil Code only

applies to “mortgages or deeds of trust recorded from January

1, 2003, to December 31, 2007, inclusive, that are secured by

owner-occupied residential real property . . . . 

‘owner-occupied’ means that the residence is the principal

residence of the borrower as indicated to the lender in loan

documents.” Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5(i) (emphasis added). The

complaint does not allege that the subject piece of property

was ever “owner-occupied.” Defendant pointed out this defect

in its motion to dismiss. Motion at 3. 

Plaintiff, in her opposition, does not counter this

argument and instead asks the court to presume that the

property was owner-occupied simply because she “alleged that

she is protected under” the statute. Opp. at 5. This is too

much of a bootstrap. Plaintiff’s failure to allege whether

the property was owner-occupied can be solved by simply

stating so in the complaint. It is plaintiff’s obligation to

plead facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. 

Case 3:09-cv-04784-BZ Document 37 Filed 03/15/10 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

3

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1955 (2009). The

Court will not presume facts that plaintiff failed to allege

in order to defeat a motion to dismiss. If plaintiff cannot

allege that the property was owner-occupied consistent with

her obligations under Rule 11, then plaintiff cannot state a

cause of action under Section 2923.5.

Defendant’s preemption argument and other challenges to

the first cause of action are best resolved after plaintiff

addresses the Court’s concern about owner-occupancy.

Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for violation of

Section 2923.6 of the Civil Code fails because that section

does not provide a private right of action to borrowers. See

Reynoso v. Chase Home Finance, 2009 WL 5069140, *4-5 (N.D.Cal

2009) and cases collected therein. Plaintiff has not cited,

and this Court has not found, a single case holding that a

borrower has a private right of action under this section. 

This cause of action is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The fifth cause of action under Civil Code Section 1572

presents the same problem as the second and third causes of

action. Plaintiff argues that this cause of action

incorporates paragraphs 32-50 and 63-69 of the complaint. 

Paragraphs 32-50 were not included in the operative version of

the complaint. 

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss is

GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to plaintiff’s FOURTH cause

of action. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

as to the remaining causes of action. Plaintiff SHALL file an

amended complaint by MARCH 25, 2010. Defendant’s motion to

Case 3:09-cv-04784-BZ Document 37 Filed 03/15/10 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

4

expunge the lis pendens is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being

renewed if defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s amended

complaint. The hearing scheduled for MARCH 17, 2010 is

VACATED. 

Dated: March 15, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FIGUEIREDO V. AURORA LOAN\DISM ORD.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-04784-BZ Document 37 Filed 03/15/10 Page 4 of 4