Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02415/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02415-4/pdf.json

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHET LEE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, ET 

AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-02415-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT J.P.

MORGAN CHASE’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 37 

Plaintiff Chet Lee brings this action against defendants Quality Loan Service Corporation, 

Caliber Home Loans, Inc., LSF9 Master Participation Trust, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. 

Bank, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, Washington Mutual Bank, and fortyfive unnamed defendants for violations related to a foreclosure. (Dkt. No. 31.) 

On July 22, 2016, the Court dismissed without prejudice plaintiff’s claims against 

defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) only for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 

27.)1

 Specifically, the Court found that plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating that Chase 

held any interests in the note and deed of trust in question at the time of the events allegedly 

giving rise to plaintiff’s causes of action. (Id. at 6.) Out of an abundance of caution, the Court 

granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to plead facts sufficient to state a claim against 

Chase. On August 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 31, “FAC.”) 

Before the Court is Chase’s motion to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. 

No. 37, “Mtn.”) Plaintiff’s response was due on October 24, 2016, yet as of this date, no response 

has been filed. Based on the Court’s review of the FAC, Chase’s motion to dismiss, and in light 

 1

 The Court adopts the Background section in it July 22, 2016 Order granting Chase’s first 

motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 27.) 

Case 4:16-cv-02415-YGR Document 38 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of California 

of plaintiff’s failure to respond to the FAC, the Court finds that plaintiff has not, and cannot state a 

claim against Chase. Plaintiff has still failed to demonstrate that Chase held any interest in the 

note and deed of trust at the time of the events allegedly giving rise to plaintiff’s causes of action. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Chase’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE 

plaintiff’s claims against Chase only. The Court VACATES the hearing set on this motion for 

November 15, 2016. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 37. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

October 31, 2016

Case 4:16-cv-02415-YGR Document 38 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2