Errico

Errico v. Pacific Capital Bank, N.A.

Good Law
753 F. Supp. 2d 1034·2010 WL 4699394·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119401
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 9, 2010Case 09-CV-04072-LHKCalifornia7,616 words

Opinion

Opinion

Koh, J.

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(re: docket # 23 and # 24)

William Errico, Loretta Ann Errico, and the William and Loretta Ann Errico Trust of 1972 (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring suit against Pacific Capital Bank, N.A. and Ni-raj Mirah (collectively “Defendants”) alleging violations of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 et seq., and violations based on various state causes of action. The thrust of Plaintiffs’ allegations, as stated in their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), is that Defendants failed to timely notify Plaintiffs of an adverse decision regarding the financing of Plaintiffs’ 140-unit condominium development in Turlock, California. Prior to reassignment to this Court, the Honorable James Ware granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for failure to sufficiently allege that Plaintiffs submitted a “complete application” for credit as required by ECOA. See February 17, 2010 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend (“February 17, 2010 Order”) [dkt. # 19]. Presently before the Court 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.