Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.

12 Citing cases

  1. Gallegos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    1:13-CV-608 AWI MJS (E.D. Cal. Jun. 18, 2013)   Cited 7 times
    Explaining that, to meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), a plaintiff must "explain what makes the misrepresentations false"

    Further, HOEPA does not apply to "residential mortgage transactions," which includes "a transaction in which a . . . deed of trust . . . is created or retained against the consumer's dwelling to finance the acquisition or initial construction of such dwelling." 15 U.S.C. § 1602(x); Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137988, *11 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); see also Valle v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50908, *18-*19 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2012); Cross v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141944, *20-*21 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2011). The FAC does not indicate whether the loan in question was used to purchase Gallegos's dwelling.

  2. L'Esperance v. HSBC Consumer Lending, Inc.

    Civil No. 11-cv-555-LM (D.N.H. Jun. 12, 2012)   Cited 8 times
    Finding no deception under the NHCPA because monthly payments were clearly disclosed in the plaintiff's loan agreements

    Judge Karlton has helpfully explained the relationship between TILA and HOEPA: "Section 1639 [of Title 15] codifies the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act ('HOEPA'), which amended TILA in 1994 to 'combat predatory lending.'" Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., No. CIV. S-09-1504 LKK/KJM, 2010 WL 5394859, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010) (quoting Henry v. Lehman Commercial Paper, Inc. (In re First Alliance Mortg. Co.), 471 F.3d 977, 984 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006)). Based on the foregoing, it would appear that all of the so-called TILA claims in Count I, which are based on § 1639, are actually HOEPA claims.

  3. Velasquez v. Chase Home Fin. LLC

    NO. CIV. S-12-0433 LKK/CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Magdaleno v. IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13561 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011)(applying, in federal court, the pleading requirements from Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631, 645, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377, 909 P.2d 981 (1996)). See also, Ungerleider v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138294 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2010); Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137988 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010)(holding that although Lazar articulates a California pleading standard, "numerous district courts have followed this rule, at least insofar as to require identification of a particular speaker."). Federal courts adjudicating state law claims apply state substantive law, Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), but federal procedural rules, Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2003).

  4. Cross v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    Case No. CV11-00447 AHM (OPx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2011)   Cited 9 times

    Accordingly, Plaintiff may not bring actions against Defendant for HOEPA violations and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss these claims is granted with prejudice. See Tanuvasa v. F.D.I.C., 2009 WL 3108568, *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2009) (holding that § 1639 does not apply where the Plaintiff explicitly alleges that the loan at issue was taken to finance her purchase of her home); Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 2010 WL 5394859, *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010). M. FCRA (Thirteenth Cause of Action)

  5. Tilley v. Mortgage

    Civ. No. S-11-1134 KJM CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2011)

    To plead a HOEPA violation, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the loan is one covered by the statutes. Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., 2010 WL 5394859, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010). Plaintiff's allegations fall short of this standard; although she suggests that the loan was predatory and made without regard to her ability to pay, she provides no factual support for her conclusory claim.

  6. Tilley v. AmPro Mortg.

    Civ. No. S-11-1134 KJM CKD (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011)   Cited 2 times

    To plead a HOEPA violation, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the loan is one covered by the statutes. Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., 2010 WL 5394859, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010). Plaintiff's allegations fall short of this standard; although she suggests that the loan was predatory and made without regard to her ability to pay, she provides no factual support for her conclusory claim.

  7. Dumas v. First Northern Bank

    NO. CIV. S-10-1523 LKK/DAD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2011)

    Magdaleno v. IndyMac Bancorp, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13561 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) (applying, in federal court, the pleading requirements fromLazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 4th 631, 645, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377, 909 P.2d 981 (1996)). See also, Ungerleider v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138294 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2010);Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137988 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) (holding that although Lazar articulates a California pleading standard, "numerous district courts have followed this rule, at least insofar as to require identification of a particular speaker."). Thus, defendants' citations to California case law regarding the heightened pleading standard for fraud in California courts are unavailing.

  8. Dotson v. Metrociti Mortgage

    Civ. No. S-10-3484 KJM DAD (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011)

    To plead a HOEPA violation, a plaintiff must allege facts that the loan is one covered by the statutes. Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., 2010 WL 5394859, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010). Plaintiffs' single, throw-away line does not state a claim under either of these provisions.

  9. Enriquez v. Countrywide Home Loans, FSB

    814 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (D. Haw. 2011)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that claim against mortgage lender failed because lender was not a credit repair organization

    (ii) $400. 15 U.S.C. § 1602(aa)(1). Section 1602(aa)(2) allows the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to make periodic adjustments to the percentage in subsection (1)(A), and the Board has reduced the rate to eight percent for first lien mortgages. See, e.g., Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., No. CIV. S–09–1504 LKK/KJM, 2010 WL 5394859, at *4 n. 1 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 21, 2010).

  10. Dotson v. Metrociti Mortg.

    Civ. No. S-10-3484 KJM DAD (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011)

    To plead a HOEPA violation, a plaintiff must allege facts that the loan is one covered by the statutes. Yulaeva v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., 2010 WL 5394859, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2010).