Felipe Gonzalez v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank

I. INTRODUCTION

18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Rushmore Loan Management 19 Services’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). 20 (ECF No. 82.) For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.1 21

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

22 The Court previously set forth the pertinent facts in its October 8, 2019 Order 23 (“October Order”), (ECF No. 85), granting motions to dismiss filed by Defendants 24 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), Federal National Mortgage Association’s 25 (“Fannie Mae”), and NDeX West LCC (“NDeX”); thus, the Court shall only repeat 26 27

28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 the facts relevant to Defendant Rushmore Loan Management Services’ (“Rushmore” 2 or “Defendant”) Motion here. 3 On July 20, 2007, Plaintiff Felipe Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) purchased the real 4 property located at 14229 Tiara Street, Los Angeles, California 91410 (“Property”) 5 and signed a deed of trust in the amount of $387,750.00 with Chase…