United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
THOMAS M. COFFIN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff's own a home encumbered by a trust deed securing the repayment of a corresponding note. They assert three common law state claims and name one defendant, PNMAC Mortgage Co., LLC (PNMAC).
Presently before the court is defendant PNMAC's motion(# 13) for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, all of plaintiff's claims fail and this action is dismissed.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows the granting of summary judgment:
if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). There must be no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
The movant has the initial burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists or that a material fact essential to the nonmovant's claim is missing. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986). Once the movant has met its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to produce specific evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact or to establish the existence of all facts material to the claim. Id .; see also, Bhan v. NME Hosp., Inc. , 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991); Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., v. Fritz Cos., Inc. , 210 F.3d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 2000). In order to meet this burden, the nonmovant "may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading, " but must instead "set out specific facts showing a genuine issue of fact for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
Material facts which preclude entry of summary judgment are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248. Factual disputes are genuine if they "properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Id . On the other hand, if, after the court has drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant, "the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, " summary judgment may be granted. Id.
Plaintiffs refinanced their property in December 2005. Plaintiffs executed and delivered a promissory note in the amount of $136, 000 and granted a deed of trust on the property to the original lender Ameriquest Mortgage Company. (The "Note" and "Deed and Trust, " collectively referred to as the "Mortgage Loan.") The Mortgage Loan was subsequently assigned to non-party CitiMortgage, Inc. ("Citi").
In March 2009, plaintiffs contacted Citi about a loan modification. Citi provided plaintiffs with information about the newly enacted federal Home Affordable Modification Program(HAMP) and thereafter provided plaintiffs with a trial plan in October 2009, wherein plaintiffs agreed to make reduced mortgage payments and Citi agreed not to enforce its rights under the Note and Deed of Trust while it assessed whether it would offer plaintiff a permanent loan modification. Citi never offered plaintiffs a permanent loan modification and transferred the Mortgage Loan to defendant PNMAC without any modification.
After PNMAC acquired the beneficial interest in the Mortgage Loan, it provided plaintiffs with information concerning a HAMP loan modification trial plan on or about June 24, 2011. Plaintiffs notified PNMAC on or about September 13, 2011 that they were not interested in accepting a HAMP loan modification from PNMAC. Plaintiffs remain in default on the payments required under the terms of the Mortgage Loan.
Plaintiffs now seek declaratory relief and damages against PNMAC for breach of contract and tort claims based upon an alleged loan modification offer made by Citi, the assignor of ...