Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00802/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00802-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELAINE M. HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

INDYMAC BANK FSB, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-10-0802 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME;

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY TWO CLAIMS

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED;

CONTINUING HEARING ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time, filed June 18, 2010, by

which plaintiff seeks an extension of the deadline to file opposition to defendants’ motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Defendants have not filed opposition

to plaintiff’s motion. Having read and considered the moving papers, the Court rules as

follows.

Good cause appearing for a limited extension, and there being no opposition to

plaintiff’s request for additional time to respond to defendants’ motion, the Court will afford

plaintiff an extension to file opposition.

Further, the Court, having reviewed the FAC, observes that the FAC, liberally

construed, includes two claims not expressly addressed in defendants’ motion to dismiss,

each of which, as discussed below, appears to be subject to dismissal. Accordingly, the

Court will direct plaintiff to show cause why those two claims should not be dismissed. See

Case 3:10-cv-00802-MMC Document 27 Filed 06/25/10 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

2

Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding “trial court may act on its own

initiative to note the inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim”).

First, plaintiff will be directed to show cause why her claim for rescission under the

Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) (see FAC ¶¶ 149-50), should not be dismissed, for the reason

that plaintiff alleges the subject property has been sold at a Trustee’s Sale (see FAC ¶ 55). 

See Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 342 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding “right to

rescind [under TILA] ends with the sale” of the property); Worthy v. World Wide Fin. Servs.,

Inc., 347 F. Supp. 2d 502, 507 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (holding plaintiff has “no right to rescind

the refinancing mortgage transaction after the foreclosure auction”).

Second, plaintiff will be directed to show cause why her claim that defendants

deprived plaintiff of due process in violation of Article I, Section 7 of the California

Constitution (see FAC ¶¶ 202-03), should not be dismissed, for the reason that such a

claim requires a showing of “state action,” and the institution of nonjudicial foreclosure

proceedings does not, as a matter of law, constitute “state action.” See Garfinkle v.

Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 268, 281-82 (Cal. 1978) (holding “state action” required to

establish claim for violation of Article I, Section 7 of California Constitution; finding

“nonjudicial foreclosure of a deed of trust constitutes private action authorized by contract

and does not come within the scope of the California due process clause”).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for an enlargement of time is hereby GRANTED, and

the Court hereby DIRECTS plaintiff to show cause why her claim for rescission and her

claim based on Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution should not be dismissed,

as follows:

1. No later than July 16, 2010, plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendants’

motion to dismiss, and shall include therein any argument as to why her claim for rescission

and her claim based on Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution should not be

dismissed.

2. No later than July 23, 2010, defendants shall file any reply to plaintiff’s

opposition.

Case 3:10-cv-00802-MMC Document 27 Filed 06/25/10 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

3. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby CONTINUED from July

9, 2010 to August 6, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., Courtroom 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00802-MMC Document 27 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 3