Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01029/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01029-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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 - 09cv1029

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIETA VAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV1029 DMS (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MIDLAND

MORTGAGE CO. AND US.

BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. 27.]

vs.

GREENLIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, et

al.,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Midland Mortgage Co. and U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 27.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.

This case arises out of a home loan and resulting foreclosure on Plaintiff Julieta Vazquez’s

home in Imperial County, California. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Greenlight Financial

Services, the lender, Chicago Title Company and Midland Mortgage Company, as trustee and

successor trustee on the note, U.S. Bank, as the purchaser of Plaintiff’s home at the foreclosure sale,

and GMAC as the loan servicer of Plaintiff’s loan. (FAC ¶¶ 6-8, 19.)

The FAC lists five claims for relief: 1) Intentional Misrepresentation; 2) Accounting and

Violation of RESPA; 3) Violations of TILA; 4) Violation of RESPA; and 5) Violation of California’s

Unfair Competition law. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 are asserted against Defendant Greenlight Financial

Services. Claim 2 is asserted against Defendant GMAC. Plaintiff does not allege any claims against

Case 3:09-cv-01029-DMS-RBB Document 38 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 09cv1029

Midland Mortgage Co. or U.S. Bank.

Plaintiff concedes that the FAC has dropped all claims against U.S. Bank and Midland

Mortgage, but nonetheless asserts that U.S. Bank remains in the action because it is not a bona fide

purchaser of the home. Plaintiff does not provide any authority for keeping a defendant in an action

when there are no claims pending against it. Accordingly, U.S. Bank and Midland Mortgage are

dismissed from the action, without prejudice. Plaintiff, however, shall wait to file an amended

complaint until the Court has ruled on Defendant Greenlight Financial’s motion to dismiss, which is

currently pending before the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01029-DMS-RBB Document 38 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 2