Rukstalis v. Kinecta Federal Credit Union

Background

Kinecta Federal Credit Union moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. The court had previously granted Kinecta’s motion to dismiss the original complaint without prejudice and had ordered that any amended breach-of-contract claim include a copy of the loan agreement. The plaintiffs did not attach the agreement, even though the opinion states that it was signed by the plaintiffs, notarized, dated contemporaneously with the deed of trust, and produced by Kinecta in response to discovery requests.

The first amended complaint contained thirteen causes of action. The court stated that several claims depended on allegations that Kinecta failed to disclose or intentionally misrepresented information about the conditions of a construction loan. According to the court, those claims depended on whether the disputed information was disclosed or properly represented in the loan agreement.

Court’s reasoning

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that they could not be bound by the loan agreement because they had not received an executed copy. It stated that a contract does not need to be delivered to be operative and that the relevant question was whether the plaintiffs signed the agreement and agreed to be bound by its terms. The plaintiffs admitted signing the loan agreement, although they questioned whether the copy produced by Kinecta was the same agreement they signed.

The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ concerns about the authenticity and chain of custody of the produced agreement. It stated that the document appeared to be signed and initialed by both plaintiffs and certified by a notary. The court explained that, under California law, notarized documents are presumed authentic and that the plaintiffs’ stated concerns were insufficient to rebut that presumption. It also noted that the same notary certified the signatures on the publicly recorded deed of trust that the plaintiffs provided to the court.

Ruling and effect

For purposes of judicial economy, the court ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to incorporate the loan agreement. Judge Noél Wise dismissed the first amended complaint in full without prejudice. The hearing set for December 10, 2025, was vacated, and any amended complaint was due within 21 days of the order. The opinion does not state the specific rule or subsection supporting the dismissal.