Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01982/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01982-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
Defendant
Deborah Curtis
Plaintiff
Option One Mortgage Corp.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBORAH CURTIS, an individual, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP., a )

suspended California corporation, and )

DOES 1 though 50 inclusive, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1:09-CV-1982 AWI SMS

ORDER VACATING JUNE 28, 2010

HEARING

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF

TO DEFINE THE MEANING OF

THE WORD “PROPERTIES” AS

USED IN THE COMPLAINT BY

JULY 2, 2010

BACKGROUND

On July 22, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of

California, County of Stanislaus. On November 10, 2009, Defendant removed the complaint to

the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, because this court has federal question

jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On April 28, 2010, the court

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend the complaint’s TILA rescission claim. The court

found that to state a TILA rescission claim, Plaintiff needed to allege in the complaint that she is

financially capable of tendering the loan proceeds. 

On May 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“complaint”). The complaint

alleges a violation of TILA and seeks rescission. The complaint alleges that: “Plaintiff is fully

able and willing to tender performance of her obligations by tendering the subject properties as

required under 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b).”

Case 1:09-cv-01982-AWI -SMS Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 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

On May 20, 2010, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss. 

1

On May 21, 2010, Option One Mortgage Corporation filed a motion to dismiss. These

Defendants contend that the complaint still does not allege Plaintiff is capable of tendering the

loan proceeds. These motions are set for oral argument to be heard on June 28, 2010. 

On June 3, 2010 and June 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss. 

Plaintiff contends that because the complaint states she is capable and willing to tender the

“properties”, nothing more is required under TILA. 

Defendants filed reply briefs. Defendants contend that Plaintiff must allege her financial

ability to return the net loan proceeds received, and not the properties securing the loans.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to rescission of her loans because Defendants failed

to provide accurate material disclosures. Title 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b) provides that:

When an obligor exercises his right to rescind . . . .under subsection (a) of this

section, he is not liable for any finance or other charge, and any security interest

given by the obligor, including any such interest arising by operation of law,

becomes void upon such a rescission. Within 20 days after receipt of a notice of

rescission, the creditor shall return to the obligor any money or property given as

earnest money, downpayment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary or

appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the

transaction. If the creditor has delivered any property to the obligor, the obligor

may retain possession of it. Upon the performance of the creditor's obligations

under this section, the obligor shall tender the property to the creditor, except

that if return of the property in kind would be impracticable or inequitable, the

obligor shall tender its reasonable value. Tender shall be made at the location

of the property or at the residence of the obligor, at the option of the obligor. If

the creditor does not take possession of the property within 20 days after tender by

the obligor, ownership of the property vests in the obligor without obligation on

his part to pay for it. The procedures prescribed by this subsection shall apply

except when otherwise ordered by a court.

15 U.S.C. § 1635(b) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff contends that she has stated a claim under Section 1625(b) because she is able

and willing to tender the subject “properties”. However, Plaintiff does not define what is meant

 This motion appears to be unnecessary as American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. is 1

not named as a Defendant.

2

Case 1:09-cv-01982-AWI -SMS Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 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

by the terms “properties” as used in the complaint. It is unclear if “properties” refers to the real

properties that secure the loans or the loan proceeds Plaintiff received from Defendants. The

court believes that a definition of the terms “properties” is necessary for the court to resolve the

pending motions to dismiss. Thus, the court will allow Plaintiff to specify her definition of term

“properties” as used in the complaint.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. By July 2, 2010, Plaintiff SHALL file an amendment to the complaint that

includes her definition of the term “properties” as used in paragraph 25 of the

complaint; 

2. The June 28, 2010 hearing date is VACATED; and

3. As of July 2, 2010, the court will take Defendants’ motions to dismiss under

submission and thereafter issue a decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 24, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 1:09-cv-01982-AWI -SMS Document 35 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 3