Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05583/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05583-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHOLAS AGBABIAKA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-05583 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

APRIL 9, 2010 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and

opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing, and to make copies

available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED

to submit the citations to the authorities only, with pin cites and without argument or additional

briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court also suggests that associates or

of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the

Court’s questions contained herein.

Case 3:09-cv-05583-JSW Document 42 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court tentatively grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and tentatively reserves

ruling on whether to grant Plaintiff leave to amend. The Court reserves issuing a tentative

ruling on the motions to expunge lis pendens and for Rule 11 sanctions.

1. What is Plaintiff’s response to the Substitution of Trustee submitted with Defendants’

Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, regarding the substitution of Quality Loan

Service as Trustee under the Deed of Trust?

2. Does Plaintiff have any California law to support the arguments raised at pages 4-5 of

his opposition to the motion to dismiss?

3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”) by “failing to make and timely provide the required written disclosures

[and] by making and collecting prohibited charges....” (Compl. ¶ 54.) 

a. To which statutory provision of RESPA does the “written disclosure” allegation

refer, 12 U.S.C. § 2603, 12 U.S.C. § 2604, or 12 U.S.C. § 2605? If Plaintiff

alleges a violation of either Sections 2603 or 2604, does he have any authority to

suggest that a private right of action exists? If Plaintiff refers to Section 2605,

why is that claim not barred by the statute of limitations? 

b. Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff asserts a violation of Section 2607, why would

that claim not be barred by the statute of limitations?

c. Although Defendants have not raised this argument in support of their motion to

dismiss, where are the factual allegations supporting a finding of pecuniary harm

suffered as a result of the alleged RESPA violations? See Allen v. United

Financial Mortg. Corp., 660 F. Supp. 2d 1089, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

(dismissing RESPA claim based on the plaintiff’s failure to allege any pecuniary

loss attributable to the alleged RESPA violation); see also Pok v. American

Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 2010 WL 476674, *5 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 3, 2010)

(dismissing RESPA claim based on the plaintiff’s failure to allege any facts to

show that the defendant’s alleged RESPA violation resulted in pecuniary

damages); Singh v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 2009 WL 2588885, *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19,

Case 3:09-cv-05583-JSW Document 42 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2009) (dismissing RESPA claim because, “[i]n particular, plaintiffs have failed

to allege any facts in support of their conclusory allegation that as a result of

defendants’ failure to respond, defendants are liable for actual damages, costs,

and attorney fees”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

4. What factual allegations in the Complaint support Plaintiff’s claim for violations of the

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)? Does Plaintiff have any authority to

counter Defendants arguments that they are not “debt collectors,” as that term is defined

in the FDCPA?

5. Plaintiff alleges that he is asserting his Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim “as set-off

in response to Defendants [sic] foreclosure of his interest in The Property, and as such

[he] is not barred by the statute of limitations.” (Compl. ¶ 95.) Under TILA, a person is

not barred “from asserting a violation of this subchapter in an action to collect the debt

which was brought more than one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation

as a matter of defense by recoupment or set-off in such action, except as otherwise

provided by State law.” 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (emphasis added). This is not an action

brought by Defendants to collect a debt. Accordingly, on what basis does Plaintiff

contend his TILA claim is not barred? 

6. Plaintiff’s fifth claim for relief is entitled “Cancellation of Instrument.” How is this

claim not duplicative of Plaintiff’s claim for Quiet Title? That is, on what separate legal

authority does Plaintiff rely to assert this claim?

7. Does Plaintiff’s fraud claim rest solely on his theory that “Defendants have represented

... that they are the real party in interest,” and entitled to foreclose upon the Property? If

not, what other facts in the Complaint support this claim for relief? 

8. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not tendered the amount due under the note and,

therefore, cannot state a claim for wrongful foreclosure or quiet title. Where in the

Complaint does Plaintiff allege the requisite tender?

Case 3:09-cv-05583-JSW Document 42 Filed 04/06/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

9. If the Court were to grant Plaintiff leave to amend, what additional facts, if any, would

Plaintiff be able to allege to support each claim for relief, including any facts that might

support tolling the applicable statutes of limitation?

10. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05583-JSW Document 42 Filed 04/06/10 Page 4 of 4