Christensen v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, 988 F. Supp. 2d 1036

Plaintiff (pro se) obtained a residential mortgage in 2007; mortgage ultimately assigned to PennyMac; foreclosure sale occurred and redemption period was at issue.
Plaintiff sought to stop foreclosure and toll redemption, alleging PennyMac/MERS (and non-party CitiMortgage) promised a loan modification and instructed him to stop payments.
Causes of action: (1) injunctive relief to toll redemption; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) promissory estoppel; (4) violation of Minn. Stat. § 58.13 (mortgage originator/servicer statute).
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing promissory estoppel is barred by Minnesota Credit Agreement statute (Minn. Stat. § 513.33), fraud claims lack particularity and causation, § 58.13 does not apply/was not pled with public-benefit or particularity, and injunctive relief is remedial only.
Plaintiff did not respond to the motion despite an order to do so. The magistrate addressed the merits and recommended dismissal with prejudice, adopted by the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Promissory estoppel based on alleged oral modification	Defendants (or their agents) promised a modification; plaintiff relied and stopped payments	Oral loan modification is barred by Minnesota Credit Agreement statute; reliance insufficient	Dismissed — claim barred by Minn. Stat. § 513.33 and inadequately pled
Negligent misrepresentation (fraud-based claim)	Defendants misled plaintiff into believing modification was approved	Alleged statements were by non-party; statements were predictions; plaintiff failed to plead who/when/what with Rule 9(b); no reasonable reliance	Dismissed — failed Rule 9(b), insufficient factual allegations and reliance
Violation of Minn. Stat. § 58.13 (false/misleading statements)	Defendants made false/deceptive statements about mortgage/modification	§ 58.13 targets public statements by originators/servicers; MERS is not a servicer; claim not pled with particularity or public-benefit required for private suit under Minn. Stat. § 8.31	Dismissed — failed Rule 9(b), statute inapplicable as pleaded, and no private-right standing shown
Injunctive relief to toll redemption period	Plaintiff sought equitable tolling pending litigation	Injunctive relief is a remedy contingent on viable substantive claims; no substantive claims survive	Denied as independent claim — remedy unavailable because substantive claims dismissed

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applies Twombly plausibility standard to factual allegations)
Freitas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 703 F.3d 436 (8th Cir. 2013) (statements that borrower "would qualify" for modification are predictive and insufficient for fraud)
Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord's, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. 2009) (elements of negligent misrepresentation under Minnesota law)
Martens v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 616 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. 2000) (elements of promissory estoppel under Minnesota law)
Mark v. Ault, 498 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2007) (failure to raise or address an issue constitutes abandonment/waiver)