Johnson v. PNC Mortgage

Good Law
80 F. Supp. 3d 980·2015 WL 662261·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17485
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 12, 2015Case No. 14-cv-02976-LBCalifornia4,984 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beeler, J.

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 32]

INTRODUCTION

This case involves a residential mortgage loan. Plaintiffs Charlotte and Nelvin Johnson allege that, in handling their requests for a loan modification, the defendants violated California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights.

The Johnsons sued PNC Mortgage and U.S. Bank in Napa County Superior Court. (Compl.-ECF No. 1 at 5-21.) 1 PNC removed the case to this court based on diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) (When it removed the case, PNC was the only defendant that had been served. (See ECF No. 1 at 2 (¶ 6)); 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(2)(A).) All parties have consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 7,11.)

The operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 30.) The Johnsons there advance three claims: 1) negligence; 2) unfair business practices under California Civil Code §§ 2923.7 and 17200; and 4) statutory cancellation of instruments under California Civil Code § 3214. (ECF No. 30, passim.)

This is the third time the defendants have moved to dismiss the Johnsons’ claims. The court granted the defendants’ previous motions to dismiss and (except for a statutory-damages claim…

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.