Lopezlena v. Litton Loan Service LP, 3:12-cv-05313

Lopezlena signed a 2005 promissory note and deed of trust securing a $248,000 loan for his home in Gig Harbor, Washington.
Litton Loan Servicing initially serviced the loan; Litton later transferred servicing to Ocwen in 2011.
Lopezlena sought a loan modification beginning around May 2009; in 2011 he applied under HAMP and his application was processed after the transfer.
Ocwen notified Lopezlena that his HAMP application lacked required documentation; on March 13, 2012, he was deemed ineligible for modification under HAMP.
Lopezlena sued in April 2012 alleging EMRA violations and fraud related to due process and equal protection in the loan modification process.
The court granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding EMRA/HAMP do not provide a private right of action and there was no state action or fraud support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
EMRA private right of action existense	Lopezlena argues EMRA creates a private right of action for relief.	Defendants contend EMRA has no private right of action and does not regulate loan modifications.	No implied private right of action under EMRA.
HAMP private right of action	Lopezlena seeks relief for HAMP-related modification denial as a private remedy.	HAMP provides no private right of action to enforce modifications.	No private right of action under HAMP.
Fraud claim viability	Lopezlena asserts loan modification fraud due to due process/equal protection delays.	Fraud requires specific, pleaded misrepresentations and reliance, which are missing.	Fraud claim insufficiently pled; fails with particularity.
Section 1983/state action compatibility	Lopezlena asserts constitutional due process/equal protection violations by state actors in the modification process.	There is no state action; the actions are private lending party decisions.	No state action; Fourteenth Amendment claims dismissed.

Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) (four-part test for implied private right of action)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facial plausibility standard for pleading)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (pleading requires more than legal conclusions)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings entitled to liberal construction)
In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541 (9th Cir. 1994) (requirement to plead facts supporting claim)
Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2007) (pleading standards apply to civil rights actions)
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (pleading must state grounds for relief)
Stiley v. Block, 130 Wash.2d 486 (1996) (state pleading standards for claims)