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.

Fadeley v. Chase Mortgage Bank and Other Unnamed

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 29, 2013

EDWARD FADELEY, Plaintiff,
v.
CHASE MORTGAGE BANK AND OTHER UNNAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendants.

ORDER

OWEN M. PANNER, District Judge.

Before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion to dismiss [#5] is GRANTED. Also before the court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [#28] of the order denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss [#4], which I construed as a motion for remand. For the reasons discussed below, that motion is DENIED. This matter is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

On December 13, 2012, pro se plaintiff Edward Fadeley filed this complaint in state court. Plaintiff served defendant Chase Mortgage Bank on March 19, 2013. (See Notice of Removal, Ex. 1; State Court Summons.) Defendant removed the action on April 16, 2013.

Plaintiff's complaint is not entirely clear. Plaintiff appears to challenge Chase's right to accept payments on a loan. Plaintiff admits obtaining a loan from Washington Mutual Bank. (Compl., ΒΆ 1.) Plaintiff alleges no recorded documents demonstrate Chase has any interest in the loan. Plaintiff also alleges the current "market mortgage rate of approximately 3.5%" is roughly twice the rate plaintiff is paying on his obligation. Plaintiff appears to seek a court order requiring defendant refinance plaintiff's loan to reflect current interest rates.

At the May 20, 2013 oral argument, plaintiff admitted he is current on the loan and there are no pending foreclosure proceedings. The court orally denied plaintiff's motion to remand and granted an extension to permit the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of Chase's entitlement to payment on the loan. On July 1, 2013, Defendants submitted declarations demonstrating their right to accept payments on the loan.

STANDARDS

I. Motion to Dismiss

On a motion to dismiss, the court must review the sufficiency of the complaint. Scheuer v. Rhodes , 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient facts that "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). This plausibility standard requires the pleader to present facts that demonstrate "more than a sheer possibility" that defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id.

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must distinguish between the factual allegations and legal conclusions asserted in the complaint. Id . All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. American Family Ass'n, Inc. v. City & County of San Frncisco , 277 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2002). At the pleadings stage, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds' of his entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Therefore, if the well-pleaded factual allegations plausibly give rise to the relief sought, a court shall deny the motion to dismiss. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. at 1950.

II. Motion for Reconsideration

"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). There may be additional circumstances justifying reconsideration, however, such would be highly unusual. Id.

DISCUSSION

I. Defendant's motion to ...


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.