Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01891/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-01891-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ursula McComas
Plaintiff
One West Bank
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Mr. Wallace, who is alleged to be the attorney for defendant One West Bank, is not

listed as a defendant in the caption of the case, but is identified as a defendant in ¶ 5 of the

complaint.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

URSULA McCOMAS,

Plaintiff, No. C 10-1891 PJH

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

ONE WEST BANK, et al.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff Ursula McComas filed this action on April 30, 2010, against defendants One

West Bank and Earl R. Wallace,1

 alleging claims under the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., and the Truth in Lending Act

(“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq.; along with numerous common law claims including

fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, quiet title, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional

distress. Also on April 30, 2010, plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (“IFP”). The court has reviewed the complaint, and finds that the action must be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is

Case 4:10-cv-01891-PJH Document 9 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). When a complaint

is filed IFP, it must be dismissed prior to service of process if it is frivolous or malicious,

fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages from defendants who are immune from

suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226-27 (9th Cir.

1984). 

A complaint is frivolous for purposes of § 1915(e) if it lacks any arguable basis in fact

or in law. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328- 30 (1989). A complaint lacks an

arguable basis in law only if controlling authority requires a finding that the facts alleged fail

to establish an arguable legal claim. Guti v. INS, 908 F.2d 495, 496 (9th Cir. 1990). 

When a complaint is dismissed under § 1915(e), the plaintiff should be given leave

to amend the complaint with directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from

the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v.

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal of complaint as frivolous). 

B. Analysis

Although it is not entirely clear, the complaint appears to be challenging a

foreclosure action involving certain real property located in Mill Valley, California (“the

property”). However, the complaint does not provide any details of the loan at issue,

including the date, the amount financed, or the identity of the lender. Moreover, although

the only named defendants are One West Bank and Earl R. Wallace, the complaint also

mentions unidentified “agent,” “appraiser,” “trustee,” and “lender” defendants, and also

refers generally to “defendants” or to “various lenders” and to “defendant MERS” (not

otherwise identified as a defendant). 

In addition, based on the papers plaintiff submitted on May 4, 2010 in support of her

application for a temporary restraining order, it appears that the property was sold to One

West Bank at a trustee’s sale on February 8, 2010. In denying plaintiff’s TRO application,

the court determined that rather than seeking to prevent a foreclosure of the property,

plaintiff was seeking to bring a halt to an unlawful detainer action filed against her in the

Superior Court of California, County of Marin. 

Case 4:10-cv-01891-PJH Document 9 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The court finds that the complaint must be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

None of the causes of action are sufficiently pled as to any particular identified defendant,

such that any defendant could frame a response. 

The dismissal is WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. In any amended complaint, plaintiff

must provide details of the loan at issue (including the date of the loan); must clearly

identify the defendants; and must, as to each separately pled cause of action, allege facts

showing which acts by each specific defendant support that particular cause of action. 

Moreover, plaintiff must clarify whether the property has in fact been sold at a trustee’s

sale. The court will not rule on the IFP request until plaintiff has filed a comprehensible

complaint. 

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the complaint is DISMISSED. Any amended

complaint must be filed no later than June 14, 2010. In the alternative, plaintiff may pay the

filing fee, and serve defendants with the summons and complaint in accordance with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01891-PJH Document 9 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 3