• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
MINUTES FORM 11 DOCInitials of Deputy Clerk _kh_CIVIL - GENPage 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 08-1334 DOC (Ex)Date: July 13, 2009Title: LINCOLN V. CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.DOCKET ENTRY
[I hereby certify that this document was served by first class mail or Government messenger service, postage prepaid, to all counsel (or parties) at theirrespective most recent address of record in this action on this date.]Date:____________ Deputy Clerk: ___________________________________
PRESENT:THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGEKristee Hopkins Not PresentCourtroom ClerkCourt ReporterATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:NONE PRESENTNONE PRESENTPROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS):GRANTING, IN PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONAND LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINTBefore the Court is Plaintiff Charles Edward Lincoln, III’s (“Plaintiff”) “Suggestion of Bankruptcy Objections to Dismissal of First Amended Complaint Motion to Reconsider Document 20Order Of Dismissal and Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [sic]”. After reading thebriefing, the Court finds that Plaintiff is actually presenting a Motion for Reconsideration and Leave toFile Second Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). The Court finds this matter appropriate for decisionwithout oral argument. F
ED
.
 
R.
 
C
IV
.
 
P.
 
78; Local R. 7-15. After reviewing the moving, opposing, andreplying papers, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS, IN PART the Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 21, 2008. Plaintiff requested leave to filean amended complaint on February 18, 2009, which was granted on February 26, 2009. In his FirstAmended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to quiet title to 4 Via Corbina, Rancho Santa Margarita, California92688 (“4 Via Corbina”) and 7433 Apache Trail, Yucca Valley, California 92284, as well as,
Case 8:08-cv-01334-DOC-E Document 23 Filed 07/13/2009 Page 1 of 4
 
MINUTES FORM 11 DOCInitials of Deputy Clerk _kh_CIVIL - GENPage 2 of 4apparently, properties in Idaho and Florida; and for a series of declaratory judgments under 42 U.S.C.§§ 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1988(a) that California Civil Code §§ 2924-2924i; as well as Idaho GeneralLaws, Mortgages & Deeds §45-1506; and Florida Statutes §§ 673.3021 & 673.3091 have been appliedand allowed to be exercised in such a way that the common law rights to limit collection andenforcement to “holders in due course” and other privileges inherent in the common law doctrine of “privity of contract” have been “all but obliterated”.The allegations supporting Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint are as follows: On orabout June 24, 2005 Hal Kuder, Jr. (“Kuder”) allegedly executed and delivered a note (“CaliforniaNote”) in return for a loan he received in the principal amount of $322,699.00 from Wells Fargo Bank,N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), secured by a deed of trust (“California Deed of Trust”) encumbering certain realproperty located at 4 Via Corbina. (Wells Fargo avers that a review of its property records establishesthat it did not make loans to Kuder secured by the other California properties that Plaintiff references.)On or about February 11, 2005, Kuder allegedly executed and delivered a note (“Florida Note”) inreturn for a loan he received in the principal amount of $193,200.00 from Wells Fargo, secured by amortgage (“Florida Mortgage”) encumbering certain real property located at 1632 Espanola Avenue inHolly Hill, Florida 32117 (“Florida Property”). On or about March 23, 2005, Kuder executed anddelivered a note (“Idaho Note”) in return for a loan he received in the principal amount of $73,920.00from Wells Fargo, secured by deeds of trust (“Idaho Deeds of Trust”) encumbering certain real propertylocated at 402-404 Andrew Court in Caldwell, Idaho 83605. Between May and June of 2008, Plaintiff purports to have entered into several contracts with Kuder to acquire title to the California, Florida andIdaho properties (the “Subject Properties”) and assume Kuder’s repayment obligations under theCalifornia, Idaho, and Florida deeds of trust (the “Subject Loans”).Plaintiff admits that he caused the Subject Loans to enter into default as he didn’t meethis repayment obligations under the Subject Loans. Plaintiff also admits that Wells Fargo deliveredthe funds to Kuder, but asserts that Wells Fargo did not “own the funds” and therefore suffered nodetriment. Further, Plaintiff argues that he set out to “verify that the servicing entities were actually‘holders in due course’” and demanding proof of “privity of contract” status. Wells Fargo does notcontest this, but states that this inquiry was unnecessary since Wells Fargo was the named lender andbeneficiary under each of the Subject Loans. However, Plaintiff states that this Court should quiet titlein him because Wells Fargo encumbered his property based on Kuder’s obligation, yet Kuder’sobligation was not secured by consideration as Wells Fargo did not transfer its own money to Kuder(rather, it transferred money of a either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac). That is, Plaintiff argues that loandocuments pertaining to the Subject Loans do not state that Wells Fargo was the lawful owner of themoney that it was delivering to Kuder, “nor even that the money was advanced against the credit of Wells Fargo, nor any other indication of detrimental action promised or undertaken by Wells FargoBank.” Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that Wells Fargo securitized the mortgages at issue, therebycausing it to no longer be the holder in due course of Kuder’s note with no right title or interest in theenforcement or collection of that note.
Case 8:08-cv-01334-DOC-E Document 23 Filed 07/13/2009 Page 2 of 4
 
MINUTES FORM 11 DOCInitials of Deputy Clerk _kh_CIVIL - GENPage 3 of 4On May 6, 2009, Defendants’ Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation and Wells FargoBank, N.A. (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as Plaintiff lacked standingto pursue this instant lawsuit and as Plaintiff had failed to state a claim for which relief can be grantedunder
 
F
ED
.
 
R.
 
C
IV
.
 
P. 12(b)(6) (the “Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff never filed an opposition to theMotion to Dismiss. On May 20, 2009, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss as Unopposed (the“May 20 Order”).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) “provides for reconsideration only upon a showingof (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify relief.”
School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. Acands, Inc.
, 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting
Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry
, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)).These grounds are further limited by the Local Rules. Local Rule 7-18 provides that amotion for reconsideration of a decision on any motion may be made only on the following grounds:“(a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in theexercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration atthe time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring afterthe time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented tothe Court before such decision.” L.R. 7-18. Finally, the Local Rule states that “[n]o motion forreconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or inopposition to the original motion.”
 Id 
.
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that the May 20 Order was in error as Cal. Code Civ. P. §764.010“prohibits judgment by default in quiet title cases without qualification or exception.” Under Cal. CodeCiv. P. 764.010:The court shall examine into and determine the plaintiff's title against theclaims of all the defendants. The court shall not enter judgment by defaultbut shall in all cases require evidence of plaintiff's title and hear suchevidence as may be offered respecting the claims of any of the defendants,other than claims the validity of which is admitted by the plaintiff in thecomplaint. The court shall render judgment in accordance with the evidenceand the law.Plaintiff argues that this provision of the California Code should apply because “it is not really aprocedural rule but a subject specific rule of decision providing special status for actions to quiet title”
Case 8:08-cv-01334-DOC-E Document 23 Filed 07/13/2009 Page 3 of 4
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...