Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02077/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02077-0/pdf.json

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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN ROYSTER,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 11cv2077 DMS (WMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

vs.

FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS, et al.,

Defendants.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, Defendants First Tennessee Bank National Association

and MetLife Home Loans Servicing filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(4) and (5) for failure to properly serve them and for failure to state a claim pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(6). They also moved to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) Plaintiffs’ quiet title claim and

certain prayers for relief. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. 

According to the complaint and exhibits attached thereto, on October 5, 2006, Plaintiff

borrowed $ 351,000 from First Horizon Home Loan Corporation, secured by a deed of trust on the

residence located at 4078-4080 North 38th Street in San Diego, California (the “Property”). The loan

was subsequently assigned to First Horizon Home Loans (“First Horizon”), a Division of First

Tennessee Bank (the “Bank”). MetLife Home Loan Servicing (“MetLife”) serviced the mortgage.

Plaintiff started having difficulties making payments, and on March 2, 2008 MetLife caused a notice

of default to be recorded against the Property. (Compl. at 4.) Plaintiff attempted to negotiate with

Case 3:11-cv-02077-DMS-WMC Document 11 Filed 12/12/11 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 -

MetLife to modify the loan or refinance it, and complied with all of MetLife’s requests for information

and documentation regarding the loan modification. (Id.) On April 1, 2011 MetLife and First Horizon

informed Plaintiff in a telephone call that they would modify the loan. (Compl. at 5.) After the pone

call, on April 5, 2011, First Horizon sent Plaintiff an e-mail reassuring him it was still willing to work

with Plaintiff to modify the loan. (Id.) Nevertheless, on April 6, 2011, the Property was sold at a

foreclosure sale to First Horizon. (Id.; see also Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale.)

On April 19, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in state court alleging that

MetLife and First Horizon fraudulently promised him to modify the loan only to lull him into failing

to exercise his rights under the law to reinstate the loan or otherwise forestall the foreclosure. He

alleged causes of action for fraud, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith

and fair dealing. He also contended there were several violations of the California Civil Code

provisions and other violations in the foreclosure procedure. In addition to damages, including

punitive damages, he requested the court to set aside the trustee’s sale and quiet title to the Property.

MetLife and the Bank removed the action to this Court based on diversity of citizenship. They

also filed the pending motions to dismiss and to strike, which Plaintiff did not oppose. If an opposing

party fails timely to file opposition papers as provided in Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), “that failure may

constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruing by the court.” S.D. Cal. Civ.

Loc. R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). 

The moving parties served Plaintiff as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 to the

address he provided in his complaint, as well as other addresses. Plaintiff has not informed the Court

of any change of address for service, as required by Civil Local Rule 83.11(b). Plaintiff was served

with the notice of removal, the moving papers and the notice of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose, which

includes the moving parties’ request to grant the motions as unopposed. To date, Plaintiff has not

responded. Under these circumstances, the Court may grant the motions as unopposed and dismiss

the complaint. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995). Alternatively, upon review

of the proofs of service of summons and complaint, it appears that Plaintiff did not properly serve the

moving parties, and that the complaint should be dismissed against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(4)

and (5). 

Case 3:11-cv-02077-DMS-WMC Document 11 Filed 12/12/11 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 -

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants First Tennessee Bank National Association and

MetLife Home Loans Servicing is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion

is granted to the extent it is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4) and (5), and DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent it is based on Rule 12(b)(6). Their motion to strike pursuant

to Rule 12(f) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

2. The time for Plaintiff to properly serve Defendants First Tennessee Bank National

Association and MetLife Home Loans Servicing is hereby extended pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff must file proofs of service of the complaint and summons on these

Defendants no later than January 9, 2012. The proofs of service must show that these Defendants

were served in accordance with Rule 4 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to timely file

proper proofs of service as provided herein will result in the dismissal of claims against Defendants

First Tennessee Bank National Association and MetLife Home Loans Servicing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02077-DMS-WMC Document 11 Filed 12/12/11 Page 3 of 3