Nool
Nool v. HomeQ Servicing
Opinion
Opinion
Wanger, J.
MEMORANDUM DECISION RE BAR-CLAYS CAPITAL REAL ESTATE, INC. (erroneously sued as HOMEQ SERVICING) (DOC. 5).
I. INTRODUCTION
Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. (“Bar-clays”), erroneously sued as HomeQ Servicing, moves to dismiss Jonathan A. and Arlene G. Nool’s (“Plaintiffs”) complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Doc. 8. On May 4, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Fresno County Superior Court, alleging ten causes of action under: (1) the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1610 , et seq.; (2) California Civil Code § 2923.6; (3) the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 , et seq.; (4) California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq.; (5) various predatory lending/ fraud statutes and regulations, including TILA, 12 C.F.R. § 226.32 (part
of “Regulation Z”), Cal. Fin.Code § 4970, and Cal. Civ.Code § 1930; (6) fraud; (7) unfair business practices, Cal. Bus Prof. Code §§ 17200 , et seq.; (8) breach of fiduciary duty; (9) for quiet title; and (1) for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Doc. 1.