Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00690/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00690-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

16cv0690 DMS (BLM)

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

RICK J. HINRICHSEN, ANNA 

HINRICHSEN, HOLLY COX,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE 

CORPORATION; DEUTSCHE BANK 

NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF 

NEW CERNTURY HOME EQUITY 

LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2005-A, ASSET 

BACKED PASS-THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES; DOES 1-10, 

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

Case No.: 16cv0690 DMS (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM

This case comes before the Court on pro se parties Rich Hinrichsen, Anna 

Hinrichsen and Holly Cox’s motion to dismiss the Counterclaim. Deutsche Bank National 

Trust Company (“DBNTC”) and Bank of America, N.A. (“BofA”) filed an opposition to 

Case 3:16-cv-00690-DMS-BLM Document 97 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16cv0690 DMS (BLM)

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

the motion,1and the Hinrichsens and Ms. Cox filed a reply. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court denies the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are set out in detail in this Court’s January 5, 2017 Order 

Granting Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Counterclaim and to Add New 

Parties. Since that Order issued, DBNTC and BofA filed an Amended Answer and 

Counterclaim against the Hinrichsens, Ms. Cox, Pacifico Property Trust, The Rick and 

Anna Hinrichsen Property Trust, Steven Lucore, Sr., Judy Lucore and Hayven Arizona 

Finance alleging claims for (1) fraud in the reconveyance of the lien, (2) fraud in the further 

encumbrance of the property, (3) quasi-contract, (4) declaratory relief, (5) rescission and 

(6) cancellation. In response to the Counterclaim, the Hinrichsens and Ms. Cox filed the 

present motion to dismiss. 

II.

DISCUSSION

The Hinrichsens and Ms. Cox move to dismiss the Counterclaim in its entirety. 

DBNTC and BofA oppose the motion, and request leave to amend if the motion is granted. 

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544 (2007), the Supreme Court established a more stringent standard of review for 

12(b)(6) motions. To survive a motion to dismiss under this new standard, “a complaint 

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim 

 

1

 The Hinrichsens and Ms. Cox assert the opposition brief was untimely filed. In support 

of this argument, they cite “Civil Local Rule 7-9,” (Reply at 2), but there is no such Local 

Rule. Contrary to the Hinrichsens’ argument, Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 states opposition 

briefs must be filed “not later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the noticed hearing.” 

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. The opposition brief was filed by that deadline, and was therefore 

timely filed.

Case 3:16-cv-00690-DMS-BLM Document 97 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16cv0690 DMS (BLM)

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

has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a 

context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience 

and common sense.” Id. at 679 (citing Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007)). 

In Iqbal, the Court began this task “by identifying the allegations in the complaint that are 

not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 680. It then considered “the factual 

allegations in respondent’s complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement 

to relief.” Id. at 681.

Here, the first and primary argument in support of the motion to dismiss is that the 

2012 reconveyance of the property is “irrelevant” because in 2006 the Hinrichsens 

rescinded their mortgage under Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”).2 The Hinrichsens have 

raised similar arguments in previous briefs, and as indicated in the Court’s Order granting 

BofA’s motion for leave to intervene, the effect of the Hinrichsens’ alleged rescission of 

their mortgage under TILA “is an issue that remains to be determined in this case.” (Docket 

No. 78 at 5.) Unless and until that issue is determined, the 2012 reconveyance of the 

property is not “irrelevant” to this case, and the Hinrichsens’ argument to the contrary does 

not warrant dismissal of the Counterclaim.

The only other argument raised in the motion is that the fraud claims are untimely. 

Specifically, the Hinrichsens and Ms. Cox assert “the statute of limitations for a cause of 

action under Cal. Civ. Code § 1719 has expired.” (Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. at 5.) 

But, there is no counterclaim under California Civil Code § 1719. To the extent the 

Hinrichsens and Ms. Cox are asserting the fraud claims actually alleged in the 

Counterclaim are time-barred, DBNTC and BofA have alleged facts that support 

 

2

 Indeed, this is the primary argument in support of dismissal of each of the claims alleged 

in the Counterclaim. 

Case 3:16-cv-00690-DMS-BLM Document 97 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16cv0690 DMS (BLM)

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

invocation of the discovery rule. (See Answer and Counterclaim ¶ 41; Opp’n to Mot. at 

16-20.) Thus, the fraud claims are not subject to dismissal at this stage of the case on the 

ground they are untimely. 

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, the Court denies the motion to dismiss the 

Counterclaim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 30, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00690-DMS-BLM Document 97 Filed 03/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4