Opinion
Case No. 1:10-CV-01709-OWW-SKO.
April 26, 2011
FREDRICK S. LEVIN, SBN 187603, DAWN N. WILLIAMS, SBN 267925, DYKEMA GOSSETT, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Litton Loan Servicing LP.
ORDER
Loan Servicing LP's ("Litton") Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), having come before this Court for hearing, the Court being fully advised in the premises, Plaintiff having a full and fair opportunity to respond, and good cause having been found to sustain Litton's Demurrer,
it is hereby ORDERED
(1) Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for Wrongful Foreclosure fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff does not allege any actionable misrepresentation with any nexus to the foreclosure; does not allege any representation that Plaintiff's loan modification would be approved or that a loan modification was agreed to; and, to the extent based upon allegations of fraud, the FAC does not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Therefore, the First Cause of Action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
(2) Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for Promissory Estoppel fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff does not plead Litton made an unambiguous promise that the loan application would be approved, the loan modified, or that foreclosure would not occur. Therefore, the Second Cause of Action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
(3) Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff does not identify any unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent practice. In particular, Plaintiff does not sufficiently alleged fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, the Third Cause of Action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
(5) Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action for Misrepresentation fails as a matter of law because it is predicated on Plaintiff's conclusory allegations that Defendants committed fraud, which do not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Further, Plaintiff alleges only that he was told his application would be reviewed and considered, he does not allege that his application was not in fact reviewed or considered. Nor does Plaintiff allege any justifiable reliance on the alleged misrepresentation resulting in damages. Therefore, the Fourth Cause of Action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 22, 2011