Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00523/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00523-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NELSON LAC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, 

DOES 1–10, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00523-KJM-AC (TEMP) 

ORDER 

Having reviewed the allegations of the complaint and the parties’ briefing, the 

court orders as follows:1

 

I. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE 

A claim for wrongful foreclosure cannot proceed before a foreclosure sale occurs. 

Vega v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1113 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing 

Munger v. Moore, 11 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7 (1970)). In addition, a plaintiff who alleges wrongful 

foreclosure must allege either that he tendered the amount due on the mortgage or that an 

exception to this rule applies. Nugent v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 12-00091, 2013 WL 

 1

 In an effort to streamline resolution of motions to dismiss in cases where the parties have 

counsel, when the court is granting leave to amend it is adopting a shortened form of order 

consistent with the order issued here. 

Case 2:15-cv-00523-KJM-DB Document 94 Filed 06/07/16 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

1326425, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013) (citing Lona v. Citibank, N.A., 202 Cal. App. 4th 89, 

112–13 (2011), and Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 211 Cal. App. 4th 1250, 1280–81 

(2012)). Here, no foreclosure sale has occurred, and the complaint includes neither an allegation 

of tender nor of any applicable exception to the tender requirement. This claim is dismissed. 

II. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 

To state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege (1) the 

defendant represented a material fact; (2) the representation was untrue; (3) the defendant made 

the representation without a reasonable ground for believing the representation was true; (4) the 

defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to rely on the misrepresentation; (5) that plaintiff did 

not know the representation was false and justifiably relied on it; and (6) the plaintiff suffered 

damages as a result. In re Daisy Sys. Corp., 97 F.3d 1171, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Masters v. 

San Bernardino Cty. Emps. Ret. Ass’n, 32 Cal. App. 4th 30, 40 n.6 (1995)). Here, Lac alleges 

Nationstar misrepresented its efforts to contact him before recording a notice of trustee’s sale. He 

alleges neither that he relied on this misrepresentation nor that it caused him damages. This claim 

is dismissed. 

III. UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 

California law prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or 

practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. 

An act violates this provision if it is “unlawful,” “unfair” or “fraudulent.” Rubio v. Capitol One 

Bank, 613 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2010). To assert a claim under these provisions, a plaintiff 

must have “‘suffered injury in fact and . . . lost money or property as a result of the unfair 

competition.’” Id. at 1203– 04 (quoting Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204) (alteration in original). 

Here, Lac has alleged no loss of money or property as a result of Nationstar’s alleged unfair 

competition. This claim is dismissed. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND LEAVE TO AMEND 

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. When a motion to dismiss is granted, 

district courts ordinarily allow the plaintiff leave to amend “when a viable case may be 

presented.” Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the 

Case 2:15-cv-00523-KJM-DB Document 94 Filed 06/07/16 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

complaint was prepared hastily in anticipation of a motion for a temporary restraining order. 

Opp’n at 1–2. Lac’s opposition brief also suggests Lac would allege in an amended complaint 

that Nationstar has attempted to schedule a foreclosure sale while considering his request for a 

loan modification, in violation of California law. He is granted leave to amend his complaint in 

any manner consistent with this order and in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 

Any amended complaint shall be filed within fourteen days. 

This order resolves ECF No. 62. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 6, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00523-KJM-DB Document 94 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 3