Pedersen v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
2:11-cv-00642
E.D. Cal.Oct 15, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Tinker and Pedersen) sued Aurora (and others) alleging multiple claims arising from mortgage, loan-modification, and foreclosure events; the operative pleading is the Third Amended Complaint (TAC).
- Earlier rounds of motions dismissed many claims and instructed plaintiffs about pleading requirements; plaintiffs narrowed to a fraud claim in the SAC and TAC.
- Tinker alleges Aurora made several fraudulent misrepresentations about loan-modification options, including representations about HAMP eligibility and compliance and a January 2011 letter (Ex. G).
- Tinker claims she relied on Aurora’s statements about HAMP eligibility, altered her finances, completed trial payments, and was nevertheless denied a modification.
- Aurora moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b)), arguing the TAC fails to cure prior pleading defects and that Pedersen lacks standing to assert claims based on Tinker’s dealings.
- The court dismissed the alleged fourth fraudulent representation (based on the HAMP-related letter) without leave to amend and accepted that Pedersen should be dismissed as a plaintiff; it granted Aurora’s motion and gave Tinker leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint omitting Pedersen and the fourth fraud theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of fraud pleading under Rule 9(b) | Tinker contends Aurora falsely represented HAMP eligibility/compliance and she relied to her detriment | Aurora contends TAC fails to plead time, place, content, and parties with particularity and did not cure prior defects | Court: TAC’s fourth fraud theory inadequately pleaded; dismissed without leave to amend |
| Whether TAC corrects deficiencies identified in prior dismissal | Tinker made limited changes and attached Exhibits (e.g., Ex. G) | Aurora argues prior defects remain and evidence cited in oppositions not incorporated into TAC | Court: Plaintiff failed to address prior deficiencies; cosmetic edits insufficient |
| Standing of Pedersen to assert claims arising from Tinker’s loan-modification dealings | Pedersen remained listed as a plaintiff in TAC | Aurora argues Pedersen lacks standing to challenge Tinker’s loan-modification transactions | Court: Pedersen has no apparent standing; court dismissed Pedersen as plaintiff |
| Judicial notice of documents relating to purchase/foreclosure/trustee sale | N/A (plaintiffs relied on documents for factual assertions) | Aurora sought judicial notice of several loan/foreclosure documents | Court: Declined to take judicial notice because documents were not relevant to the fraud claim challenged |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 8 pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (Rule 12(b)(6) may dismiss for lack of cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (application of Rule 9(b) to fraud claims)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (Rule 9(b) requires particularity as to time, place, content, and parties)
- Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531 (corporate fraud: misrepresentations must be pled with particularity; roles of individuals may be alleged on information and belief)