Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jody G. Medeiros v. Citibank

February 15, 2012

JODY G. MEDEIROS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITIBANK, N.A.; BANK OF ) AMERICA, N.A.; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10L DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; AND DOE ENTITIES, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Oki Mollway Chief United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION.

On April 25, 2006, Plaintiff Jody G. Medeiros

("Medeiros") entered into a mortgage agreement securing a $700,000 loan to purchase property on the island of Maui. See Compl. ¶ 8, Oct, 13, 2011, ECF No. 1; Compl. Ex. 1 ("Mortgage"), at 1, Oct. 13, 2011, ECF No. 1-2. The mortgage document names Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., as the lender, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as the mortgagee. Mortgage at 2.

On October 31, 2011, Medeiros brought this lawsuit against Defendants Citibank, N.A., and Bank of America, N.A., ("BOA"), claiming that Citibank has violated the Truth and Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g), and that BOA has charged her too much for property insurance. Medeiros alleges that BOA is the servicer of the mortgage and that Citibank is the mortgagee. Compl. ¶¶ 9-10.

BOA now seeks dismissal of the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*fn1 The court grants the motion.

II. STANDARD.

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides: "Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defense[] by motion: . . .

(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]" Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either

(1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory, or (2) insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir. 1984)). To state a claim, a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8 does not demand detailed factual allegations, "it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court takes all allegations of material fact as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Marcus v. Holder, 574 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129

S. Ct. at 1949. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 554). Whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is "context-specific," and such a determination "requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 1950.

When reviewing motions to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court is generally limited to the contents of the complaint. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); Campanelli v. Bockrath, 100 F.3d 1476, 1479 (9th Cir. 1996). If matters outside the pleadings are considered, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion is treated as one for summary judgment. See Keams v. Tempe Tech. Inst., Inc., 110 F.3d 44, 46 (9th Cir. 1997); Anderson v. Angelone, 86 F.3d 932, 934 (9th Cir. 1996). However, courts may "consider certain materials--documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice--without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment." United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Documents with contents that are alleged in a complaint may also be considered in ruling ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.