Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00324/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00324-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Muoi Ho, an unmarried woman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Federal National Mortgage Association, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-324-TUC-FRZ (JJM)

ORDER

Before the Court for consideration is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and the Report

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

This action, originally filed by Plaintiff Muoi Ho in the Arizona Superior Court in and

for the County of Pima and removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, was referred

to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall for all pretrial proceedings and report and

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1

and LRCiv 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Bank of

America, N.A. (“BANA”), individually and as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans

Servicing, L.P., and ReconTrust Company, N.A. (“ReconTrust”) (collectively “Defendants”)

filed the present motion on July 22, 2011 to dismiss the Complaint filed in this action, which

alleges five causes of action arising from the non-judicial foreclosure of the Plaintiff’s home,

as set forth in detail in the Report and Recommendation.

Case 4:11-cv-00324-FRZ Document 27 Filed 03/28/12 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 -

Following review of the Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff’s response in opposition

thereto, Defendants’ reply, and hearing oral argument on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge

Marshall issued her Report and Recommendation on September 21, 2011, recommending

that the District Court, after its independent review of the record, enter an order granting

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and further granting Plaintiff leave to amend her claims

alleging fraud.

The Report and Recommendation advised “the parties shall have fourteen (14) days

from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific

written objections with the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a)

and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge

were timely filed on November 22, 2011, requesting the Court deny the Defendants’ motion

to dismiss in its entirety, or, in the alternative, grant Plaintiff at least sixty (60) days leave to

conduct discovery and amend her Complaint. 

Defendants filed a response thereto, requesting the Court adopt the Report and

Recommendation granting the motion to dismiss, but further requesting that the Court

dismiss Plaintiff’s claims without leave to amend.

The Court finds, after de novo review of the matters presented, including the Report

and Recommendation, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff’s response in opposition, and

Defendants’ reply, Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation and Defendants’

response thereto, that the findings of the Magistrate Judge shall be accepted and adopted as

the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court, with exception of the

recommendation that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend. 

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations in relation to Plaintiff’s fraud

claims do not meet the specific content pleading requirements to comply with Rule 9(b) and

cannot “be cured by the addition of facts consistent with those alleged in the complaint,” as

suggested in the Report and Recommendation. See Silving v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 800

F.Supp.2d 1055,1074-75 (D.Ariz. 2011)(“We have interpreted Rule 9(b) to mean that the

Case 4:11-cv-00324-FRZ Document 27 Filed 03/28/12 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 -

pleader must state the time, place, and specific content of the false representations as well

as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.”)(citation omitted). “Plaintiff[‘s]

lack of access to some facts does not excuse failure to adequately plead the facts [she does]

have.” Id.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 23) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of

law by this Court, with the exception that leave to amend shall not be granted;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is

GRANTED and this action is hereby dismissed; Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 

DATED this 28th day of March, 2012.

Case 4:11-cv-00324-FRZ Document 27 Filed 03/28/12 Page 3 of 3