Samson v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:20-cv-07714
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Samson v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Judge Chhabria denied remand, granted dismissal motions, and allowed Samson to amend her complaint.
Marilou Samson’s claims against J.P. Morgan Chase and Quality Loan Service were dismissed, while the court allowed her 14 days to file an amended complaint. Samson’s counsel was also required to use a full name on pleadings and be admitted to practice in the court.
What happened
In Samson v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Marilou Samson asked the court to send the case back to state court. J.P. Morgan Chase and Quality Loan Service asked the court to dismiss claims against them.
The court denied Samson’s request to remand. It granted both dismissal motions, rejecting Samson’s contract and related claims against Chase and her declaratory-relief, contract, and unfair-competition claims against Quality Loan Service. The court allowed Samson to file an amended complaint within 14 days, but said she could not bring her claim under California Civil Code section 2923.7 unless she first had a valid damages claim.
Judge Vince Chhabria also directed Samson’s counsel to use a full name on future pleadings and to be admitted to practice in the court.
The detailed version
- Samson v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-07714
- Vince Chhabria
- Mar. 9, 2021
Background
The order addressed three motions: Marilou Samson’s motion to remand, J.P. Morgan Chase’s motion to dismiss, and Quality Loan Service’s motion to dismiss.
Motion to Remand
The court denied Samson’s motion to remand. Assuming Samson properly served Chase, the court held that Chase removed the case on time because the deadline fell on a Sunday and therefore extended to the next court day, November 2, 2020. The court also concluded that Quality Loan Service appeared to be only a nominal trustee. Because Samson did not dispute that characterization or allege facts contradicting it, the court held that Quality Loan Service’s consent was not needed for removal.
Chase’s Motion to Dismiss
The court granted Chase’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Samson’s breach-of-contract claim because, in the court’s view, her theory of breach was clearly flawed. The court also dismissed Samson’s claim under California Civil Code section 2923.7. Because the complaint showed that foreclosure had not yet occurred, the court said Samson could seek only injunctive relief on that claim. The court further concluded that Samson could not obtain an injunction against Chase because she admitted Chase was no longer the loan servicer.
Quality Loan Service’s Motion to Dismiss
The court granted Quality Loan Service’s motion to dismiss. Samson asserted claims against that defendant for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and unfair competition. The court held that those claims failed for the reasons stated in the earlier decision the court cited. The order also states that Samson’s claims for declaratory relief, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition duplicated her breach-of-contract claim and failed for the same reasons.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court allowed Samson to file an amended complaint within 14 days if she wished to try again to state a claim against the defendants. It stated that the section 2923.7 claim could not be asserted unless and until Samson had a valid claim for damages. The court also notified Samson’s counsel that future pleadings must list counsel’s full name and that counsel must be admitted to practice in the court. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on March 9, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.