Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02126/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02126-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

DENISE K. SCHMIDT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2126-LAB-KSC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

vs.

PNC BANK, et al.,

Defendant.

This case arises out of the foreclosure of Ms. Schmidt’s home. She asserts claims

for declaratory relief, negligence, quasi contract, violation of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, violation of the California Business and Professions Code, and an accounting.

PNC Bank filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the complaint, attacking,

with legal support, each of Ms. Schmidt’s claims: (1) the lack of an actual controversy, and

the availability of other relief, precludes declaratory relief: (2) a negligence claim can’t stand

because, as a mere lender, PNC owed Ms. Schmidt no duty of care; (3) an action in quasi

contract can’t lie where there is an actual, binding contract, and Ms. Schmidt alleges no

facts, anyway, to show that PNC was unjustly enriched; (4) PNC is not a debt collector under

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (5) there is no predicate unfair or unlawful act to

support a violation of the Business and Professions Code; and (6) the accounting claim is

really an unjust enrichment claim, and there’s no fiduciary relationship with PNC, in the first

place, to state a claim for an accounting. 

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-02126-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 03/27/13 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

Ms. Schmidt didn’t file a meaningful opposition to PNC’s motion to dismiss. Instead,

a few days before her opposition was due she filed a one-page document claiming to oppose

the motion “based on all the papers on file with the Court, the arguments set forth, and any

arguments made by Plaintiff’s counsel at the hearing currently scheduled.” Of course, the

only papers on file were the complaint and PNC’s motions to dismiss and strike it, and

there’s never a guarantee that the Court will hear oral argument on a motion. So, Ms.

Schmidt’s opposition was so feeble as to hardly be an opposition at all, and the Court is

unwilling to regard it as one. This is not good for her. Under Standing Order 4(b) of the

undersigned judge, as well as Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c), the failure to file an opposition to a

motion is construed as consent to the motion being granted.

Ms. Schmidt also attached an amended complaint, modified to add Deutsche Bank

as a Defendant. This amended complaint was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a)(1), and under Rule 15(a)(2) she must obtain PNC’s consent—which it isn’t

giving—or the Court’s leave. The Court is not inclined to give that leave, considering that

Ms. Schmidt has not even attempted to explain how adding a new Defendant to this case

is responsive to PNC’s arguments for dismissal of her claims. Moreover, the Court does not

think it is.

PNC characterizes this action as “nothing more than a frivolous and desperate

attempt to avoid foreclosure of Plaintiff’s Encinitas property,” and the Court sees no evidence

to the contrary. The fact that Ms. Schmidt first filed a complaint in California Superior Court, 

then an amended complaint, then voluntary dismissed her complaint without prejudice days

before a motion to dismiss hearing, and then filed a complaint in federal court, is highly

suggestive that she is in fact using the judicial process to stall the foreclosure of her home

rather than pursue claims she sincerely believes to be meritorious. Indeed, four paragraphs

of Ms. Schmidt’s complaint—pertaining to role of mortgage securitization in the recent

financial collapse—are lifted verbatim from the website of Red CarpetEnterprises, an Illinoisbased consultancy that serves distressed homeowners facing foreclosure. (See FAC ¶¶ 14,

15, 16, 18; https://redcarpetenterprises.net/Forensic_Process_Review.html.)

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-02126-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 03/27/13 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

The Court has reviewed and carefully considered PNC’s arguments for dismissal and

finds that Ms. Schmidt has no rebuttal to them. The motions to dismiss and strike Ms.

Schmidt’s complaint are GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 20, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:12-cv-02126-LAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 03/27/13 Page 3 of 3