Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SLEZAK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TCIF, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-3537 MMC

ORDER TREATING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Before the Court is the motion, filed April 13, 2006 by defendants TCIF LLC (“TCIF”)

and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), to dismiss plaintiff Richard Slezak’s First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”). By order filed May 16, 2006, the Court granted plaintiff’s

application to consider his untimely opposition, and afforded defendants the opportunity to

address in their reply a threshold issue, specifically, whether on November 16, 2004, the

date IndyMac Bank (“IndyMac”) discharged plaintiff from any obligations plaintiff had to

IndyMac, IndyMac held an interest in plaintiff’s real property. In so doing, the Court made

the observation that judicially-noticeable documents might be of assistance in resolving

such threshold issue.

On June 9, 2006, defendants filed their reply. In support thereof, defendants offer a

certified copy of an Assignment of Deed of Trust/Mortgage (“Assignment”), recorded in the

San Francisco Assessor-Recorder’s Office on March 16, 2005, which indicates IndyMac

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 40 Filed 06/22/06 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

transferred its interest in the subject real property to TCIF. (See Defs.’ Req. for Judicial

Notice Ex. C.) The Assignment is a document of which the Court may take judicial notice. 

See, e.g., Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Local 2 v. Vista Inn Management

Co., 393 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (taking judicial notice of deeds recorded with

San Francisco Assessor-Recorder’s Office). As defendants acknowledge, however, the

Assignment does not indicate the date on which IndyMac transferred its interest in the

subject real property to TCIF. Consequently, the Assignment does not resolve the

threshold issue identified by the Court in its May 16, 2006 order.

Also in support of their reply, defendants offer a copy of a Loan Purchase and Sale

Agreement (“Sale Agreement”) between IndyMac and TCIF, under which IndyMac

transferred its interest in the subject property to TCIF on December 30, 2002. (See

Samberg Decl. Ex. A.) Along with the Sale Agreement, defendants have submitted the

declaration of Mitchell D. Samberg (“Samberg”), a managing officer of TCIF, who states

that “[d]ue to the large volume of mortgages that TCIF buys and sells on the secondary

market, it is not unusual for a significant lapse of time to occur between the date of the sale

and the recording of the Assignment.” (See id. ¶ 4.) The Sale Agreement and the

Samberg Declaration are not documents of which the Court may take judicial notice,

however. Consequently, the Court cannot consider such documents in the context of a

motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, because the evidence presented, if undisputed, would

resolve the threshold issue of whether IndyMac held an interest in plaintiff’s real property as

of November 16, 2004, the Court will not exclude the evidence and, instead, will “treat” the

motion as a motion for summary judgment made pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (providing where, in support of motion to

dismiss, “matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the

motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment”).

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 40 Filed 06/22/06 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

Because plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to defendants’ evidence as

to the date on which IndyMac transferred its interest in the subject real property to TCIF,

the Court hereby SETS the following briefing schedule:

1. Plaintiff shall file and serve on defendants, no later than July 14, 2006, his

opposition to defendants’ motion, now treated as a motion for summary judgment on the

issue of whether IndyMac held an interest in the subject real property on November 16,

2004. In opposing such motion, plaintiff is referred to Rule 56(a)-(g) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. If plaintiff does not file opposition by July 14, 2006, the Court will deem

defendants’ motion submitted as of that date.

2. If plaintiff files opposition by July 14, 2006, defendants shall file their reply, if any,

no later than July 28, 2006, and the motion will be deemed under submission as of that

date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 40 Filed 06/22/06 Page 3 of 3