Therefore, "to maintain a quiet title claim, a plaintiff 'is required to allege tender of the proceeds of the loan at the pleading stage.'" Id. (quoting Velasquez v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 2010 WL 3211905, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); see also Hensley v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2010 WL 5418862, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010) (dismissing a quiet title claim where the plaintiff did "not allege that she has tendered, or is able to tender"). Contrary to Defendants' argument, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged their ability to tender and that Plaintiffs have offered to tender their obligation.
Therefore, "to maintain a quiet title claim, a plaintiff 'is required to allege tender of the proceeds of the loan at the pleading stage.'" Id. (quoting Velasquez v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. C 10-01641 SI, 2010 WL 3211905, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); see also Hensley v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 10-CV-1316, 2010 WL 5418862, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010) (dismissing a quiet title claim where the plaintiff did "not allege that she has tendered, or is able to tender"). Plaintiffs do not allege credible tender of the amount of debt owed or their ability to tender in their wrongful foreclosure or quiet title claims.
Therefore, "to maintain a quiet title claim, a plaintiff 'is required to allege tender of the proceeds of the loan at the pleading stage.'" Id. (quoting Velasquez v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. C 10-01641 SI, 2010 WL 3211905, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); see also Hensley v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 1:10-CV-1316 AWI SMS, 2010 WL 5418862, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010) (dismissing a quiet title claim where the plaintiff did "not allege that she has tendered, or is able to tender"). Plaintiff does not allege tender as required.
Therefore, "to maintain a quiet title claim, a plaintiff `is required to allege tender of the proceeds of the loan at the pleading stage.'" Id. (quoting Velasquez v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. C 10-01641 SI, 2010 WL 3211905, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); see also Hensley v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 1:10-CV-1316 AWI SMS, 2010 WL 5418862, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010) (dismissing a quiet title claim where the plaintiff did "not allege that she has tendered, or is able to tender"). Plaintiffs do not satisfy this pleading requirement.
Therefore, "to maintain a quiet title claim, a plaintiff 'is required to allege tender of the proceeds of the loan at the pleading stage.'" Id. (quoting Velasquez v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. C 10-01641 SI, 2010 WL 3211905, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); see also Hensley v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 1:10-CV-1316 AWI SMS, 2010 WL 5418862, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010) (dismissing a quiet title claim where the plaintiff did "not allege that she has tendered, or is able to tender"). Plaintiffs do not satisfy this pleading requirement.
However, Defendants only attack the portion of Plaintiff's claim seeking damages, and not her claim for rescission. HOEPA is an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), and therefore is governed by the same remedial scheme and statutes of limitations as TILA. Hensley v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2010 WL 5418862, *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010); Wadhwa v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 2011 WL 1601593, *2 (E.D. Cal. April 27, 2011). The statute of limitations for TILA damages claim is one year from the occurrence of a violation.
Therefore, "to maintain a quiet title claim, a plaintiff `is required to allege tender of the proceeds of the loan at the pleading stage.'" Id. (quotingVelasquez v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, No. C 10-01641 SI, 2010 WL 3211905, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)); see also Hensley v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 1:10-CV-1316 AWI SMS, 2010 WL 5418862, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010) (dismissing quiet title claim where the plaintiff did "not allege that she has tendered, or is able to tender"). Plaintiff does not allege tender of the amount of debt owed, or her ability to tender, under her quiet title claim.
However, as asserted by Defendants, no private right of action is provided for a violation of the limitation on requirement of advance deposits in escrow accounts pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2604. See Hensley v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135812 (ED Cal. 2010), and Brohpy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Co., 947 F.Supp. 879, 883 (E.D. Penn. 1996). The Fourth Cause of Action is dismissed as to OneWest Bank, without prejudice. No leave to amend is granted at this time.
However, as asserted by Defendants, no private right of action is provided for a violation of the limitation on requirement of advance deposits in escrow accounts pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2604. See Hensley v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135812 (ED Cal. 2010), and Brohpy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Co., 947 F.Supp. 879, 883 (E.D. Penn. 1996). The Fourth Cause of Action is dismissed as to OneWest Bank, without prejudice. No leave to amend is granted at this time.
However, as asserted by Defendants, no private right of action is provided for a violation of the limitation on requirement of advance deposits in escrow accounts pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §2604. See Hensley v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135812 (ED Cal. 2010), and Brohpy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Co., 947 F.Supp. 879, 883 (E.D. Penn. 1996). The Fourth Cause of Action is dismissed as to OneWest Bank, without prejudice. No leave to amend is granted at this time.