Pinel

Pinel v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC

Good Law
814 F. Supp. 2d 930·2011 WL 3843960·2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97384
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 30, 2011Case C 10-03118 SBACalifornia6,640 words

Opinion

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Maritza Pinel (“Plaintiff’) filed the instant class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated to challenge the allegedly unfair and unlawful business practices of Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC (“Aurora”) with respect to its use of mortgage “Workout Agreements.” The Court has subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d).

The parties are presently before the Court on Aurora’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 25. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter, and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for the reasons set forth below. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-l(b).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Summary

The following facts are based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which are taken as true for the purposes of the instant motion. Plaintiff is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.