Source: http://loan365.info/american-mortgage/230
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:56:35+00:00

Document:
First California Mortgage Company, Defendant.
Provident Funding Associates, L.P., Defendant.
Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC, Defendant.
Wells Fargo Financial Retail Credit, Inc. f/k/a Norwest Financial Acceptance, Inc., Defendant.
Donald G. Heeman, David L. Hashmall, and Jessica J. Nelson, Felhaber Larson, Minneapolis, MN Edward P. Sheu and Kyle R. Hardwick, Best & Flannagan LLP, Minneapolis, MN Peter E. Calamari, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY and Jeffrey A. Lipps, Carpenter Lipps & Leland LLP, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff.
David M. Souders and Tessa K. Somers, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Washington, D.C. for Defendant Academy Mortgage Corporation.
J. Robert Keena and Carol R. M. Moss, Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC, MN and James W. Brody and Greg W. Chambers, Novato, CA, for Defendant First California Mortgage Company.
Mark G. Schroeder and Daniel N. Moak, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, MN and Neil R. O’Hanlon, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant, Provident Funding Associates, L.P.
Erin Sindberg Porter and Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, and Philip R. Stein and Shalia Sakona, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Miami, FL for Defendant T.J. Financial, Inc.
Erin Sindberg Porter and Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, MN and Philip R. Stein and Shalia Sakona, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Miami, FL for Defendant Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC.
Marc T. G. Dworsky, Richard C. St. John, and Todd J. Rosen, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA Christian K. Wrede, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA., and Richard T. Thomson and Amy L. Schwartz, Lapp, Libra, Thomson, Stoebner & Pusch, Chtd., Minneapolis, MN., for Defendant Wells Fargo Financial Retail Credit, Inc. f/k/a Norwest Financial Acceptance, Inc.
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by each Defendant in the above-captioned matters. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are denied.
RFC alleges that, pursuant to these Agreements, it purchased: (1) over 600 mortgage loans, with an original principal balance exceeding $77 million, from Defendant Academy Mortgage Corporation (“Academy”); (2) over 300 mortgage loans, with an original principal balance exceeding $125 million, from Defendant First California Mortgage Company (“First California”); (3) over 6,900 mortgage loans, with an original principal balance exceeding $2.6 billion, from Defendant Provident Funding Associates, L.P. (“Provident”); (4) over 600 mortgage loans, with an original principal balance exceeding $227 million, from Defendant T.J. Financial, Inc. (“T.J. Financial”); (5) over 3,000 mortgage loans, with an original principal balance exceeding $800 million, from Defendant Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC (“Universal”); and (6) over 3,700 mortgage loans, with an original principal balance exceeding $155 million, from Defendant Wells Fargo Financial Retail Credit, Inc. f/k/a Norwest Financial Acceptance, Inc. (“Wells Fargo”). (Id. ¶¶ 4, 17.)  RFC then either pooled those loans to sell into residential mortgage-backed securitization (“RMBS”) trusts or sold them to whole loan purchasers. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 36.)  A list of the loans sold to RFC by each Defendant and securitized is attached to the respective First Amended Complaints as Exhibit C.
Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, arguing that RFC has insufficiently pleaded its claims. Defendants Academy, First California, T.J. Financial, and Universal also assert that RFC lacks standing to bring its claims.  And, Defendants Academy, First California, Provident, T.J. Financial, and Universal argue that at least some of RFC’s claims are time-barred.  Because the motions raise substantially similar issues, they were consolidated for oral argument, and the matter was heard on June 5, 2014.
The Court will first address the argument that RFC lacks standing to bring its claims because, “[i]f a plaintiff lacks standing, a court is without subject matter jurisdiction.” S.D. Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeltine, 340 F.3d 583, 591 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). As noted above, four Defendants challenge RFC’s standing. Academy and First California argue that RFC has failed to adequately allege that it suffered an injury and that any injury suffered was caused by them.  (See Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def. Academy’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 43] (“Academy’s Mem.”), at 7-10; First California’s Reply Mem. in Supp. of Its Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 50] (“First California’s Reply”), at 10-13.) In addition, T.J. Financial, Universal, and Academy argue that RFC lacks standing because it assigned away its rights to bring claims based on the loans. (See Def. T.J. Financial’s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Its Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 47] (“T.J. Financial’s Mem.”), at 13-14; Def. Universal’s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Its Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 46] (“Universal’s Mem.”), at 12-14; Academy’s Mem., at 8.) At least at this stage of the litigation, however, the Court finds that RFC has adequately alleged both an injury in fact and causation, as well as a right to assert the claims stated in the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of standing are denied.
(1) there must be “injury in fact” or the threat of “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury must be fairly traceable to defendant’s challenged action; and (3) it must be likely (as opposed to merely speculative) that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.
Gray v. City of Valley Park, 567 F.3d 976, 984 (8th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). However, “[a]t the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) . This is because, “on a motion to dismiss we `presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.&apos;” Id. (quoting Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 889 (1990) ).
Academy Mortgage made numerous material representations and warranties to RFC concerning the loans Academy Mortgage sold to RFC; Academy Mortgage contractually agreed to various remedies for any breach of its representations and warranties, including broad indemnification provisions; Academy Mortgage’s loans in fact contained numerous breaches of the representations and warranties traceable to those loans; and RFC has been damaged as a result of Academy Mortgage’s breaches.
The Court agrees with RFC. RFC alleged that Defendants Academy and First California sold over 600 and 300 mortgage loans, respectively, to RFC; that the parties’ relationship was governed by the Agreements, under which Defendants made numerous representations and warranties regarding the origination, servicing, and quality of the loans; that Defendants delivered loans that contained defects that violated those representations and warranties; that many of the loans eventually sustained losses and exposed RFC to claims from other parties; and that, as a result of Defendants’ breaches, RFC incurred obligations and losses, such as repurchasing numerous defective loans that were originally sold to it by Defendants, defending the quality of the loans sold to it by Defendants in federal and state court litigation, and settling proofs of claim seeking damages stemming from defective loans, including those sold to RFC by Defendants. These general allegations of injury are sufficient at the pleading stage, and RFC has tied that injury to Defendants’ allegedly defective loans and alleged breaches of their representations and warranties in the Agreements. The fact that RFC alleged that others also caused it injury does not negate the allegations of injury caused by Defendants. Accordingly, the Court finds that RFC’s factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint are sufficient to establish both injury in fact and causation.
In addition to the elements of standing discussed above, “a plaintiff `must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.&apos;” Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Block, 771 F.2d 347, 352 (8th Cir. 1985) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) ). “[I]n the context of standing, it is the nonfrivolous claims of a party that are determinative, not whether the party can sustain those claims by proof on the merits.” City of St. Louis v. Dep’t of Transp., 936 F.2d 1528, 1532 (8th Cir. 1991) .
The Court, again, agrees with RFC. RFC’s First Amended Complaints do allege that RFC is asserting its own legal rights—namely, its rights to seek remedies for Defendants’ breaches of the representations and warranties they made to RFC in the Agreements. While RFC alleges that it pooled the loans it purchased from Defendants into RMBS trusts or sold them to whole loan purchasers, RFC does not allege that it sold its rights to bring claims based on breaches of the representations and warranties in the Agreements. Similarly, although the First Amended Complaints note that RFC’s affiliates also filed for bankruptcy, RFC alleges only that Defendants must compensate RFC for the portion of the settlement for which Defendants are responsible. Accepting these allegations as true, and construing them in favor of RFC, RFC has alleged that it has a legal right to sue under the Agreements. Whether RFC can, in fact, enforce those Agreements, or whether it has assigned away its rights to do so, goes to the merits of the claims and is not an issue of standing. See, e.g., Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Mortg. Outlet, Inc., No. 13-CV-3447 (PJS/JSM), 2014 WL 4954645, at *7 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2014) (stating in a similar case that whether RFC assigned away its rights under its contracts with the defendants when it sold the loans to third parties “is not an issue of standing, . . . but rather goes to the merits of RFC’s claims”).
Defendants also argue that RFC’s pleadings are insufficient to state a claim. Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint “must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), clarified that this Rule does not require that a complaint contain “detailed factual allegations,” but it does require that it contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 . In other words, this standard “calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim].” Id. at 556. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ). Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 .
As noted above, RFC alleges claims for breach of representation and warranty in Count One, and indemnification in Count Two.  The elements of a breach of warranty claim are: existence of a warranty, reliance on the warranty, breach of the warranty, and a causal link between the breach and the alleged harm.  See Hendricks v. Callahan, 972 F.2d 190, 192-94 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing Peterson v. Bendix Home Sys., 318 N.W.2d 50, 52-53 (Minn. 1982) ; Midland Loan Fin. Co. v. Masden, 14 N.W.2d 475, 481 (Minn. 1944) ). However, “Minnesota law does not require reliance to be pleaded in a contract action based on an alleged breach of a representation of future legal compliance.” Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ill. Paper & Copier Co., 848 N.W.2d 539, 544 (Minn. 2014) .  As for the second claim, “[i]ndemnity . . . arises out of a contractual relationship, either express or implied by law, which `requires one party to reimburse the other entirely.&apos;” Blomgren v. Marshall Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 483 N.W.2d 504, 506 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (quoting Hendrickson v. Minn. Power & Light Co., 104 N.W.2d 843, 847 (Minn. 1960) ). Thus, “[a] claimant may recover indemnity . . . `[w]here there is an express contract between the parties containing an explicit undertaking to reimburse for liability of the character involved.&apos;” Id. (quoting Hendrickson, 104 N.W.2d at 848 ).
Defendants make two main arguments regarding the insufficiency of RFC’s First Amended Complaints in regard to both causes of action: (1) RFC’s allegations do not contain the requisite specificity, and (2) RFC does not allege the necessary elements of satisfaction of conditions precedent and materiality. Because the Court finds that RFC has adequately stated its claims for breach of representation and warranty and indemnification, Defendants’ motions to dismiss for insufficient pleading are denied.
The Court finds that RFC was not required to make loan-specific allegations to support its claims. First, as discussed above, Rule 8 requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and Iqbal and Twombly did not abrogate this standard, Hamilton v. Palm, 621 F.3d 816, 817 (8th Cir. 2010) . Rather, the Supreme Court specifically stated in those cases that Rule 8 does not require “detailed factual allegations,” but only facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 . Accordingly, as noted by another judge in this District, “[Rule 8] is both a floor and a ceiling: [it] can be violated by a complaint that pleads too little and by a complaint that pleads too much.” Wright v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 09-CV-0443 (PJS/AJB), 2010 WL 1027808, at *13 (D. Minn. Mar. 17, 2010). Use of loan-specific allegations in cases like the present would result in complaints that are hundreds of pages long, and would fall into the latter category.  See Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Broadview Mortg. Corp., Civ. No. 13-3463 (ADM/SER), 2014 WL 4104819, at *5 (D. Minn. Aug. 19, 2014); Order at 4-5, Residential Funding Co., LLC v. First Mortg. Corp., Civ. No. 13-3490 (RHK/FLN) (D. Minn. Aug. 1, 2014) (Doc. No. 48) (citing Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Mortg. Outlet, Inc., Civ. No. 13-3447, June 16, 2014 Hr’g Tr. 74-75 (Doc. No. 51)).
Second, the case law favors RFC’s position. For example, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held in Ace Securities Corp. that the plaintiff’s allegations, which “[did] not furnish a basis for determining which specific breaches [the defendant] actually discovered, and therefore which loans it was obligated to repurchase,” were sufficient to meet federal pleading standards because “a complaint for repurchase need not contain specific allegations regarding each loan at issue.” 5 F. Supp. 3d at 560 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). More importantly, most of the judges in this District who have considered this exact issue have found that RFC was not required to make loan-specific allegations in its complaints in order to satisfy Rule 8. See Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Cmty. W. Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 13-3468 (JRT/JJK), 2014 WL 5207485, at *14 (D. Minn. Oct. 14, 2014); Mortg. Outlet, Inc., 2014 WL 4954645, at *2; Broadview Mortg. Corp., 2014 WL 4104819, at *5; Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Gateway Bank, F.S.B., Civ. No. 13-3518 (MJD/JSM), 2014 WL 3952321, at *10 (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2014) (adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation); Order at 4-5, First Mortg. Corp., Civ. No. 13-3490 (RHK/FLN) (D. Minn. Aug. 1, 2014) (Doc. No. 48); Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Mortg. Access Corp., Civ. No. 13-3499 (DSD/FLN), 2014 WL 3577403, at *3 (D. Minn. July 21, 2014). But see Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Embrace Home Loans, Inc., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, Civ. No. 13-3457 (PAM/FLN), 2014 WL 2766114, at *4-6 (D. Minn. June 18, 2014). As noted by one of those judges, “[r]equiring such specificity in cases involving hundreds or thousands of loans contravenes the requirement of pleading a `short and plain statement’ of claims.” Broadview Mortg. Corp., 2014 WL 4104819, at *5 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
warranties were breached, but it denied the motion to dismiss a third breach of warranty claim where the plaintiff did allege the ways in which the defendant had breached the warranty. 2011 WL 4837493, at *3. Importantly, the court did not hold in either of those cases that loan-specific allegations are necessary for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss. Torchlight is inapposite because it involved only a single loan. See 2012 WL 3065929, at *1.
Third, RFC’s allegations in the First Amended Complaints do address all of the elements of its claims with the requisite specificity and provide fair notice of those claims to Defendants. As for RFC’s breach of representation and warranty claim, RFC has alleged the existence of a warranty (e.g., the parties’ relationships were governed by the Agreements, relevant excerpts of which are attached to the First Amended Complaints  and which detail the various representations and warranties made by Defendants)  ; reliance on the warranty (e.g., that RFC relied on the information that was the subject of the representations and warranties when it made its own representations and warranties to its buyers); a breach (e.g., that internal reviews demonstrated that many of the loans sold to RFC by Defendants violated the representations and warranties by including income and employment misrepresentations, owner occupancy misrepresentations, appraisal misrepresentations or inaccuracies, undisclosed debt, insufficient credit scores, lien position, and missing or inaccurate documents); and a causal link between the breach and the alleged harm (e.g., RFC faced claims and lawsuits resulting from the defective loans sold to it by Defendants, RFC repurchased defective loans sold to it by Defendants, and RFC ultimately entered into a $10 billion-plus settlement of its RMBS-related liabilities). As for RFC’s indemnification claim, RFC has alleged the existence of an express contract between the parties undertaking to reimburse RFC for liabilities resulting from breaches of the representations and warranties (i.e., the Agreements).  And, as discussed above, RFC has sufficiently alleged that Defendants breached the representations and warranties and, as a result, incurred liabilities.  These allegations provide “enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim].” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 . Accordingly, the First Amended Complaints satisfy Rule 8 and the plausibility standard.
As outlined above, neither satisfaction of conditions precedent nor materiality of the breach is an element of either of RFC’s claims.  However, even assuming that those are elements that RFC was required to plead, RFC’s allegations are sufficient. As for conditions precedent, Rule 9 states that, “[i]n pleading conditions precedent, it suffices to allege generally that all conditions precedent have occurred or been performed. But when denying that a condition precedent has occurred or been performed, a party must do so with particularity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(c). Therefore, RFC’s general allegation that it “complied with all conditions precedent, if any, and all of its obligations under the Agreement” is adequate.  See, e.g., Cummins Law Office, P.A. v. Norman Graphic Printing Co., 826 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1129 (D. Minn. 2011) (finding the plaintiff’s allegation that “`[a]ny conditions precedent to [its] right to demand performance by [the defendant] have been performed&apos;” to be sufficient under Rule 9); Broadview Mortg. Corp., 2014 WL 4104819, at *8 (finding RFC’s allegations in a similar case that “it performed all of its obligations to Defendants, and `all conditions precedent to the relief sought in this action, if any, have been satisfied,&apos;” to be sufficient at the pleading stage). As for materiality, RFC alleged that “Defendant[s] materially breached [their] representations and warranties to RFC inasmuch as the mortgage loans materially did not comply with the representations and warranties,” that “Defendant[s’] material breaches constitute Events of Default under the Agreement[s],” and that “RFC has suffered loss, harm, and financial exposure directly attributable to Defendant[s’] material breaches.” (E.g., First California, Doc. No. 38, ¶¶ 88-90 (emphases added).) Accordingly, RFC has also sufficiently alleged that the breaches were material.
Finally, each Defendant except Wells Fargo contends that some or all of RFC’s claims for breach of representation and warranty and indemnification are time-barred. (See Academy’s Mem., at 15; First California’s Mem., at 14-17; Provident’s Mem., at 17-20; T.J. Financial’s Mem., at 15-17; Universal’s Mem., at 14-17.) “[W]hen it `appears from the face of the complaint itself that the limitation period has run,’ a limitations defense may properly be asserted through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Varner v. Peterson Farms, 371 F.3d 1011, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). However, because it does not appear to the Court from the face of the First Amended Complaints that the limitations period has necessarily run as to any of the loans at issue, Defendants’ motions to dismiss RFC’s claims as time-barred are denied.
The Court finds that, at this stage of the litigation, none of RFC’s breach of representation and warranty claims are properly dismissed as time-barred. Under § 108(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, if the statute of limitations governing a debtor’s claim has not expired prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the trustee may commence an action on that claim before the later of the end of the statutory limitations period or “two years after the order for relief.” 11 U.S.C. § 108(a). The parties agree that Minnesota has a six-year statute of limitations for contract claims. See Minn. Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(1). And, here, the instant actions were filed in December 2013, which is within the two-year period following the bankruptcy court’s order for relief. Accordingly, because the six-year statute of limitations had not expired as to loans sold to RFC on or after May 14, 2006 at the time RFC filed its bankruptcy petition on May 14, 2012, those claims are not time-barred. See 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a) (stating that “a debtor in possession shall have all the rights . . . and powers, and shall perform all the functions and duties . . . of a trustee serving in a case under [Chapter 11]”); Johnson v. First Nat’l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 278 n.11 (8th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted) (“Although the language of § 108 refers only to the trustee, it is generally agreed that the debtor-in-possession is also entitled to the statute’s privileges.”); Residential Funding Co., LLC v. Wallick & Volk, Inc., Civ. No. 13-3512 (MJD/JJG), 2014 WL 3955257, at *5 (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2014) (finding that RFC was entitled to invoke § 108(a) in a similar case).
Moreover, “[w]here a warranty relates to a future event that will determine whether or not it is breached, the statute does not begin to run until the happening of such future event.” City of Pipestone v. Wolverine Ins. Co., Civ. No. 4-84-634, 1985 WL 1845, at *4 (D. Minn. June 28, 1985) (citation omitted). One of the representations and warranties that RFC relies on in the First Amended Complaints as a basis for its claims is that Defendants would notify RFC of any material acts or omissions regarding the loans. Thus, it is plausible from the face of the First Amended Complaints that one of the allegedly breached warranties related to an event that occurred, if at all, after the sale of a loan. In that case, the statute of limitations would not begin to run until some later date and may permit a claim based on a loan sold to RFC prior to May 14, 2006 to proceed. The dates upon which any Defendant allegedly breached that representation and warranty is an issue that goes beyond the pleadings and cannot be resolved at this stage.
The Court finds that RFC’s indemnification claims are not time-barred. “Under the common law, the right of indemnity does not accrue until the liability of the party seeking indemnity has become finally fixed and ascertained, or until after the claimant has settled or has paid the judgment or more than a commensurate share of it.” Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro. Transit Comm’n, 538 N.W.2d 692, 695 (Minn. 1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “[t]he statute of limitations in an indemnification case ordinarily is six years after final judgment or settlement.” Hernick v. Verhasselt Constr., Inc., No. CX-02-1424, 2003 WL 1814876, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2003) (citing Oanes v. Allstate Ins. Co., 617 N.W.2d 401, 403 (Minn. 2000) ).
RFC has incurred substantial liabilities, losses and damages arising from and relating to material defects in the mortgage loans [Defendants] sold to RFC, including over $10 billion in allowed claims approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, as well as tens of millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees, litigation-related expenses, and other costs associated with defending dozens of lawsuits and proofs of claim filed against RFC stemming in part from materially defective loans sold to RFC by [Defendants].
(First Am. Compl. ¶ 78.)  RFC also notes that it began facing claims and lawsuits stemming from the loans at issue beginning in 2008, and that the bankruptcy Plan was confirmed in December 2013. Accordingly, because it appears from the face of the First Amended Complaints that RFC’s liability did not become finally fixed and ascertained until at least sometime after 2008, and because the First Amended Complaints were all filed less than six years later in December 2013, RFC’s indemnification claims are timely.
9. Defendant Wells Fargo Financial Retail Credit, Inc. f/k/a Norwest Financial Acceptance, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [Case No. 13-cv-3525, Doc. No. 57] is DENIED.
 Although Count One is labeled “Breach of Contract,” RFC asserts that it actually states a claim for “breach of representation and warranty.” (See Pl.’s Mem. of Law in Opp. to Def. Academy’s Mot. to Dismiss the First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 48] (“RFC’s Opp. to Academy”), at 10; Pl.’s Mem. of Law in Opp. to Def. First California’s Mot. to Dismiss the First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 49] (“RFC’s Opp. to First California”), at 10; Pl.’s Mem. of Law in Opp. to Def. Provident’s Mot. to Dismiss the First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 43] (“RFC’s Opp. to Provident”), at 11; Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to Def. T.J. Financial’s Mot. to Dismiss the First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 52] (“RFC’s Opp. to T.J. Financial”), at 24; Pl.’s Mem. in Opp. to Def. Universal’s Mot. to Dismiss the First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 51] (“RFC’s Opp. to Universal”), at 25; Pl.’s Mem. of Law in Opp. to Def. Wells Fargo’s Mot. to Dismiss the First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 64] (“RFC’s Opp. to Wells Fargo”), at 9.) Because the substance of the First Amended Complaints indicates that RFC intended to bring a breach of representation and warranty claim—e.g., RFC alleges in Count One that Defendants “made representations and warranties to RFC regarding the quality and characteristics of the mortgage loans Defendant[s] sold to RFC,” and that “Defendant[s] materially breached [their] representations and warranties to RFC inasmuch as the mortgage loans materially did not comply with the representations and warranties,”—the Court will construe Count One accordingly. See Malone v. Husker Auto Grp., Inc., No. 4:08CV3199, 2008 WL 5273670, at *4 (D. Neb. Dec. 17, 2008) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 547 F.2d 688, 691 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ) (“`[T]he label which a plaintiff applies to a pleading does not determine the nature of the cause of action which he states.&apos;”); Bandy v. Fifth Third Bank, 519 F. App’x 900, 902 (6th Cir. 2013) (stating that the court should look beyond the label to the substance of the complaint when construing the claims); see also Residential Funding Co. v. Americash, Civ. No. 13-3460 (DSD/JJG), 2014 WL 3577312, at *2 n.2) (D. Minn. July 21, 2014) (looking to the substance of RFC’s complaint in a similar case and determining that RFC had asserted a claim for breach of warranty rather than for breach of contract, as the claim was labeled).
 First California raises this argument for the first time in its reply brief. The Court need not address whether that was permissible because the argument fails for the reasons discussed herein.
 Defendants had also each filed a motion to dismiss the original Complaint in their respective matters. Provident, T.J. Financial, and Universal have not withdrawn those motions. (See Case No. 13-cv-3485, Doc. No. 19; Case No. 13-cv-3515, Doc. No. 29; Case No. 13-cv-3519, Doc. No. 29.) However, because an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint such that the original complaint is without legal effect, the Court will deny those motions as moot. See In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
 As noted above, several exhibits were attached to the First Amended Complaint in each matter: the Seller Contract entered into with the relevant Defendant (Exhibit A), excerpts of the Client Guide (Exhibit B), and a “preliminary list” of the loans sold by the relevant Defendant to RFC pursuant to the Agreements and subsequently securitized by RFC (Exhibit C). The Court may properly consider these documents because they are necessarily embraced by the pleadings.
 In the alternative, Academy argues that RFC’s claim of damages exceeding $75,000 has no factual basis because RFC makes no loan-specific allegations and, accordingly, cannot support diversity jurisdiction. As discussed in more detail below, RFC was not required to make loan-specific allegations. Therefore, this argument fails.
 Because standing was not raised in First California’s moving brief, RFC did not address the issue in its brief opposing First California’s motion.
 The parties agree that Minnesota law governs RFC’s claims.
 Defendants Wells Fargo and First California argue that “manifestation of the defect” is also a required element of a breach of warranty claim, and that RFC has failed to allege facts showing that any defects have manifested in the loans at issue. (See Reply Mem. in Supp. of Def. Wells Fargo’s Mot. to Dismiss the First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 66] (“Wells Fargo’s Reply”), at 4-5; First California’s Mem., at 11.) Even if “manifestation of the defect” is a required element, Defendants’ argument is without merit. As discussed in more detail below, RFC has alleged that internal reviews demonstrated that loans sold to RFC by Defendants violated the representations and warranties by including income and employment misrepresentations, owner occupancy misrepresentations, appraisal misrepresentations or inaccuracies, undisclosed debt, insufficient credit scores, lien position, and missing or inaccurate documents; and that these defects resulted in claims and lawsuits against RFC, required RFC to repurchase loans, and ultimately contributed to forcing RFC into bankruptcy. (See infra at 24-25.) Therefore, RFC has adequately alleged manifestation of the defect.
 In making this determination, the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to reach the issue of the continued validity of the reliance requirement in a breach of warranty claim. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., 848 N.W.2d at 544 n.6 .
 The list of loans that RFC purchased from each Defendant and securitized, which is attached as Exhibit C to each of the First Amended Complaints, itself runs anywhere from 7 to 151 pages.
 Several Defendants also argue that RFC’s claims fail because RFC did not identify the specific contracts governing its relationship with each Defendant, RFC only attached excerpts of the Client Guide, and the excerpts of the Client Guide do not represent all of the versions of the Client Guide that were issued over the years. (See Reply in Supp. of Def. Academy’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s First Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 49], at 10; Provident’s Mem., at 10-12; T.J. Financial’s Mem., at 10-12; Universal’s Mem., at 11.) However, as RFC notes in opposition, RFC alleged that its relationship with each Defendant was governed by the Agreements attached as Exhibits A and B to the First Amended Complaints. In addition, RFC alleged that “[t]he complete versions of the Client Guide are known to the parties and [are] too voluminous to attach in their entirety,” and that the omitted portions are not relevant to the allegations in the First Amended Complaint. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 18.) Assuming these facts to be true, and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of RFC, the Court finds that RFC has sufficiently identified the contractual provisions upon which it is basing its claims.
 Defendant Wells Fargo argues that RFC’s claims against it fail because RFC has not plausibly alleged that its contracts with Wells Fargo included the representations, warranties, and indemnification provisions upon which RFC is suing. (See Wells Fargo’s Mem., at 15-18.) Rather, Wells Fargo asserts that its Seller Contracts did not incorporate the terms of the Client Guides, but instead incorporated the “AlterNet Seller Guide,” and thus Wells Fargo was not subject to the Client Guide. (See id.) However, as RFC points out, its First Amended Complaint against Wells Fargo alleges: “Under the [Seller] Contract, Wells Fargo Financial was authorized to sell loans under RFC’s `Alternet Program,’ a program under the Client Guide for purchase of non-conforming loans. The Contract incorporated into its terms and conditions the RFC Client Guide. . . . The Contract and Client Guide collectively form the parties’ Agreement, and set the standards to which Wells Fargo Financial’s loans sold to RFC were expected to adhere.” (Wells Fargo, Doc. No. 43, ¶ 18.) Moreover, RFC argues that “the fact that the Alternet Program applied to the agreement between RFC and [Wells Fargo] did not negate or invalidate the representations and warranties set forth in the Client Guide.” (RFC’s Opp. to Wells Fargo, at 14.) Because RFC has plainly alleged that the representations and warranties in the Client Guide applied to Wells Fargo, and because it is not clear from the pleadings or the attachments to the pleadings that those allegations are false, RFC has sufficiently alleged that its contracts with Wells Fargo included the representations, warranties, and indemnification provisions upon which it is suing Wells Fargo.
 Defendant Provident makes a conclusory argument that RFC’s indemnification claim fails because RFC did not allege that Provident breached an agreement to indemnify RFC. (Provident’s Mem., at 14.) However, Provident points to no authority for the proposition that it is necessary to plead a breach of an indemnification agreement in order to state a claim for indemnification.
 Provident also notes in a conclusory statement that RFC’s indemnification claim fails because RFC did not allege that RFC requested indemnification from Provident. (See Provident’s Mem., at 14.) The Court construes this statement as an argument that RFC failed to allege the necessary conditions precedent. As discussed herein, this argument fails.
 First California relies on Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. 2009), for the proposition that satisfaction of conditions precedent is a necessary element to a breach of warranty claim. (See First California’s Reply, at 3-4.) In that case, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff’s breach of warranty claim because the plaintiff terminated the parties’ agreement without satisfying the necessary condition precedent. Valspar Refinish, Inc., 764 N.W.2d at 366 . However, the court did not discuss whether the plaintiff was required to plead satisfaction of the condition precedent in its complaint. Therefore, the case is inapposite.
 Because the Court agrees that a general allegation of satisfaction of conditions precedent is sufficient, it will not address RFC’s other arguments related to that issue.
Save trees – read court opinions online on Google Scholar.
Chapter 11 Dockets is the most efficient, effective way to research bankruptcy cases and identify precedent.
Because it was designed by experienced restructuring professionals and is chapter 11 specific in focus, Chapter 11 Dockets is optimized for the unique needs of bankruptcy practitioners.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 108
 § 108
 § 541
 § 1107
 v. 
 § 108
 v. 
 § 108
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.