Tamburri v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86360
| N.D. Cal. | 2012Background
- Tamburri filed a state court action asserting RESPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5, unfair competition, and wrongful foreclosure claims; SunTrust removed and a TRO and PI were entered enjoining foreclosure; Wells Fargo default was entered and later set aside; the Court previously dismissed some claims and now addresses a Second Amended Complaint with respect to RESPA and remaining state-law issues.
- The SAC reasserts RESPA claims against SunTrust and Wells Fargo, but the Court previously held RESPA damages were not alleged and the ownership disputes fall outside RESPA’s scope.
- The Court supplements jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) after dismissing the RESPA claim, and finds NBA preemption arguments insufficient to bar the state-law claims.
- The Court denies relief for RESPA on the SAC with prejudice, while allowing supplemental adjudication of state-law claims in light of preemption analysis.
- The Court denies with prejudice the quiet title and negligence claims, grants in part and denies in part the fraud claims, and grants in part and denies in part the UCL claims with respect to post-injunction conduct by Recontrust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2605 RESPA claim survives dismissal | Tamburri contends RESPA violations occurred via failure to respond to QWRs and causally linked damages. | SunTrust/Wells Fargo argue SAC still lacks cognizable damages and that QWRs do not relate to loan servicing. | RESPA claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether NBA preemption bars state-law claims | Tamburri argues state foreclosure laws not preempted by NBA. | Defendants argue NBA preempts state claims. | NBA preemption denied; stay in favor of state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction. |
| Whether § 2923.5 claim survives | Tamburri alleges lack of pre-notice contact before default. | SunTrust Wells Fargo contend compliance with § 2923.5. | § 2923.5 claim denied against SunTrust, Wells Fargo, MERS, Recontrust; but not foreclosed in all respects; partial denial. |
| Whether wrongful foreclosure against MERS survives | Tamburri asserts improper authority to foreclose by MERS. | MERS lacked authority to foreclose; other entities may have acted improperly. | Wrongful foreclosure claim as against MERS dismissed with prejudice; others survive. |
| Whether UCL claim survives post-injunction conduct | Tamburri asserts misrepresentations and backdating caused harm and deception. | Defendants contend post-injunction conduct lacks damages or causal link. | UCL claim dismissed as to Recontrust post-injunction advertising; otherwise allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (heightened pleading standard to state a claim)
- Parks Sch. of Bus. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995) (claims must be plausible, not merely possible)
- Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009) (construes Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards in Ninth Circuit)