Hamilton

Hamilton v. Bank of Blue Valley

Good Law

746 F. Supp. 2d 1160·2010 WL 4222724·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115430

United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 20, 2010Case CV F 10-1740 LJO SKOCalifornia8,673 words

Opinion

O'Neill, J.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ F.R.Civ.P. 12 MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 8.)

INTRODUCTION

Defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) and Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) seek to dismiss as legally and túne barred plaintiffs Edward Hamilton (“Mr. Hamilton”) and Anne Marie Hamilton’s (“Mrs. Hamilton’s”) claims arising from foreclosure of their Oakhurst, California residence (“property”). Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton appear to chiefly oppose dismissal in that Chase and MERS (collectively “defendants”) did not respond to Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton’s request for documents and do not “own” the property to permit foreclosure. This Court considered defendants’ F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the record and VACATES the November 1, 2010 hearing, 2010 WL 4483476 , pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons discussed below, this Court DISMISSES this action against defendants.

BACKGROUND

Mr. And Mrs. Hamilton’s Loan And Default

On August 19, 2005, Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton borrowed $275,000 under a promissory note to purchase the property. To secure the loan against the property, Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton executed a Deed of Trust (“DOT”), which was recorded on August 30, 2005. The DOT…

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.