Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03028/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03028-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

WILDER IVAN CALDERON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-3028-LAB

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, QUALITY LOAN

SERVICE CORP., FEDERAL HOME

LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

AND DOES 1–10,

Defendants.

Calderon brings this wrongful foreclosure action against Bank of America, Quality

Loan Service Corporation, and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. He alleges six

claims: (1) a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, (2) intentional

misrepresentation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) to quiet

title, and (6) for declaratory relief. Now pending are Defendants’ motions to dismiss the

complaint for failure to state a claim.

I. Background

On June 27, 2007, Calderon borrowed $400,000 from Bank of America to buy a home

in San Diego. A deed of trust was recorded with the San Diego County Recorder’s Office on

July 17, 2007, with Calderon listed as the borrower, Bank of America as the lender, and

PRLAP, Inc. as the trustee. Several years later, on February 8, 2012, a substitution of

trustee was recorded naming Quality as the new trustee in place of PRLAP. That same day,

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-03028-LAB-WVG Document 17 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Quality recorded a notice of default, stating its intention to foreclose because Calderon was

$149,377.07 behind in his payments. A trustee’s sale was noticed on May 11, 2012, and

FHLMC bought the home at a trustee’s sale in June, subsequently recording a deed of trust.

II. Requests for Judicial Notice

Bank of America asks the Court to take judicial notice of the relevant loan documents

referenced above—all of which were recorded with the San Diego County Recorder’s Office.

Because these are undisputed documents of public record, this request is appropriate. See

Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001); Mehta v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 737

F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1191 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (taking judicial notice of publicly recorded loan

documents).

III. Legal Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts to state a

plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)). The Court may consider, in addition to the pleaded

facts, items of which it has taken judicial notice, such as the loan documents here. Skilstaf,

Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1016 n.9 (9th Cir. 2012). The Court will give the

facts, but not the legal conclusions, the assumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

IV. Discussion

Calderon alleges a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), as well as

intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment. He

also asks the Court to quiet title and for declaratory relief against FHLMC. The Court will

address these claims in sequence.

A. UCL Claim

The UCL prohibits any fraudulent, unlawful, or unfair business act or practice. Cal.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. These are three distinct paths to relief. Hutton v. Fidelity Nat’l

Title Co., 152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 584, 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). A fraudulent business practice

under the UCL requires only that members of the public are likely to be deceived. Daugherty

v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 118, 128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). A business practice

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-03028-LAB-WVG Document 17 Filed 06/24/13 Page 2 of 4
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

is unlawful simply if it violates any law. Saunders v. Superior Court, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 438, 441

(Cal. Ct. App. 1994). And a business practice is unfair if the consumer suffers a substantial

injury that they could not have reasonably avoided. Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc.,

99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 768, 784–85 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).

Calderon’s UCL claim is based solely on allegations contradicted by the public record.

He alleges that Quality’s representations as trustee were “unfair, deceptive, and/or unlawful”

because Quality was not the lawful trustee. This is directly contradicted by a substitution of

trustee, recorded on February 8, 2012, naming Quality as the new trustee. Thus, Quality was

trustee when it signed the notice of trustee’s sale on May 11, 2012. Calderon fails to explain

why the substitution of trustee ought not have effect. Furthermore, Calderon fails to allege

any facts suggesting that Bank of America or Quality’s representations were likely to deceive

the public, nor does he allege any facts that they violated the law. Finally, Calderon has no

unfair UCL claim because, even if he can show harm from being foreclosed upon, he cannot

show that this harm couldn’t have been reasonably avoided. The motions to dismiss

Calderon’s UCL claim are therefore GRANTED.

B. Misrepresentation and Fraudulent Concealment Claims

Intentional and negligent misrepresentation both require a false representation of

fact. West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 285, 295 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).

Fraudulent concealment requires the suppression of a material fact with intent to defraud.

Levine v. Blue Shield of Cal., 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262, 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).

Calderon claims Quality and Bank of America committed intentional and negligent

misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment when Quality falsely claimed to be trustee

and thus, without legal authority, held a trustee’s sale. But the public record proves

otherwise: Quality was the trustee. Calderon has simply pleaded no facts to show that

Defendants misrepresented or suppressed the truth. Defendant’s motions to dismiss

Calderon’s second, third, and fourth claims are therefore GRANTED.

//

//

- 3 -

Case 3:12-cv-03028-LAB-WVG Document 17 Filed 06/24/13 Page 3 of 4
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

C. Quiet Title and Declaratory Relief Claims

In his fifth and sixth claims, Calderon asks the Court to quiet title on the property and

for declaratory relief against FHLMC. Essentially, Calderon is asking the Court to declare

that he has title in fee simple and that Defendants have no legal rights against him or to the

property. FHLMC moves to dismiss these claims.1

To bring an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must provide a basis for that title. Cal. Civ.

Proc. Code § 761.020(b). A mortgagor cannot quite title until his debt has been paid. Aguilar

v. Bocci, 114 Cal. Rptr. 91, 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974). The parties agree that Calderon took out

a mortgage loan on the property. Calderon has not alleged that he paid off or even

attempted to pay off his debt. Thus, Calderon has no basis for title, and the motion to

dismiss the action to quiet title is GRANTED.

The basis of Calderon’s request for declaratory relief is that Quality had no authority

to act as trustee. But as discussed above, that claim is groundless, and there is simply no

factual basis for the Court to grant the declaratory relief Calderon seeks. That is to say, this

claim fails for the same reason that Calderon’s other claims fail. The motion to dismiss the

claim for declaratory relief is therefore GRANTED.

V. Conclusion

For the reasons given, Defendants’ motions to dismiss Calderon’s complaint are

GRANTED. Defendants raised other arguments in their motions, including Calderon’s failure

to tender, and while not fully addressed, the Court finds these arguments persuasive and

Calderon’s respective counter-arguments unpersuasive.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JUNE 24, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN Burns

United States District Judge

Although FHLMC has not filed a separate motion to dismiss, Bank of America’s 1

motion directly addresses these claims. (Doc. 3-1 at 17–19). To the Court’s understanding,

both FHLMC and Bank of America are represented by Bryan Cave LLP, and so the Court

will construe the motion to dismiss Calderon’s fifth and sixth claims as from FHLMC. 

- 4 -

Case 3:12-cv-03028-LAB-WVG Document 17 Filed 06/24/13 Page 4 of 4