Liu v. Fidelity National Title Company

Background

Steven Liu filed this civil action and applied to proceed without paying court filing fees. The court granted that application and screened his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. After finding deficiencies, the court ordered Liu to amend. Liu filed an amended complaint concerning his alleged ownership of 633-635 Olmstead Street (the “Subject Property”).

Baymark Financial, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Liu’s requests for quiet title and declaratory relief. Baymark also argued that Liu was not and had never been the owner of the Subject Property and submitted a request for the court to take notice of documents.

Claims and Analysis

Liu asserted claims for: (1) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (2) fraud by intentional misrepresentation; (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) conspiracy against civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); (5) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; (6) conspiracy to violate that Act; and (7) abuse of process.

The recommendation states that Liu’s allegations were insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires dismissal of a case filed without paying fees if the court determines, among other things, that the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim. The recommendation also states that Liu’s amended allegations were almost identical to those in his earlier complaint and did not correct the previously identified deficiencies.

For the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim, the recommendation states that Liu challenged actions concerning a debt documented by a January 2018 deed of trust and assignment. The document submitted by Baymark showed that Sally L. Liu was the trustor, transferred the Subject Property to Fidelity National Title Co. as trustee, and signed the notarized deed of trust securing an $800,000 loan. The recommendation therefore states that the debt was incurred by Sally L. Liu and that Liu did not own the Subject Property. It recommends dismissing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim with prejudice because Liu did not appear to have standing to assert it.

For fraud by intentional misrepresentation, the recommendation applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires a fraud claim to identify the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged misconduct. It states that Liu did not identify who made the alleged statement, when or where it was made, or how it was made. It also states that the alleged statement concerned a loan Liu did not enter into. The recommendation therefore recommends dismissing this claim with prejudice.

For the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the recommendation explains that a plaintiff must allege a violation of a constitutional or federal right committed by someone acting under color of state law. It concludes that filing unlawful-detainer lawsuits in state court did not make the defendants state actors and recommends dismissing the claim with prejudice.

For the 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy claim, the recommendation states that Liu did not allege specific facts showing the discriminatory bias required for such a claim. It recommends dismissing that claim with prejudice.

For the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims, the recommendation states that Liu did not adequately identify an enterprise, the roles of the defendants, or racketeering activity. It also states that it was unclear how filing duplicate unlawful-detainer actions would constitute a crime punishable under criminal law. It recommends dismissing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims with prejudice.

For abuse of process, the recommendation states that Liu relied on the filing of multiple unlawful-detainer actions but did not adequately allege improper use of legal process. It further states that some of the actions Liu identified were filed against his sister rather than against him. The recommendation recommends dismissing this claim with prejudice.

Disposition

The document recommends that Liu’s case be dismissed with prejudice because he failed to correct the deficiencies identified in the screening order and many deficiencies could not be corrected. It further recommends that Baymark’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot. Because this is a report and recommendation, the document states that any party may file objections with the district judge under the Northern District of California’s local rules. The opinion text identifies Judge Kandis Westmore in the supplied case information, while the signature image in the text is incomplete.