Glaude v. Deutsche Bank

Background

Donald Glaude sued Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Community Realty Property Management, Inc., and VMM Irrevocable Trust over ownership of and foreclosure on property identified as 8096 Juniper Avenue, Newark, California. Glaude had litigated related issues in state and federal court and had filed three unsuccessful Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The opinion states that the property was sold at a trustee’s sale on August 22, 2023, and that Glaude filed this action on October 23, 2023.

In an earlier federal action, Glaude alleged that Deutsche Bank violated the law in attempting to foreclose on the property. That action was dismissed after the court applied doctrines concerning parallel state proceedings and federal review of state-court judgments, and Glaude did not amend his complaint. In the related state case, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of Glaude’s fourth amended cross-complaint. The state case involved claims including wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory relief, and breach of an alleged oral agreement.

Rulings on the Motions

The court granted Deutsche Bank’s request for judicial notice of filings and dockets from state and federal courts because they were public records. The court then addressed Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Claim preclusion

Claim preclusion, sometimes called res judicata, prevents a party from bringing a later case based on the same cause of action or harm that was resolved in an earlier final case. Applying California law, the court held that the state-court judgment was final and on the merits, involved the same causes of action for at least some of Glaude’s claims, and involved the same parties or parties legally connected to them.

The court held that Counts II through VIII were barred by claim preclusion and dismissed them without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Those claims included negligent misrepresentation, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, quiet title, and a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim. The court also stated that the claim labeled “Securities Fraud” was most accurately understood as another version of Glaude’s wrongful-foreclosure claim. Independently, the court said that claim did not adequately allege securities fraud, and that the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim was supported by insufficient allegations.

Truth in Lending Act claim

The court concluded that Glaude’s Truth in Lending Act claim, Count I, might not be barred by claim preclusion because it alleged a separate injury involving inaccurate loan records. Nevertheless, the court dismissed that claim for failure to state a claim. The claim sought damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1640, which provides a one-year limitations period running from the alleged violation. Because the loan transaction occurred in May 2005, the court held that the claim was untimely. The court also concluded that equitable tolling could not extend the deadline because Glaude had been asserting the same alleged misrepresentations in court for years.

Disposition

The court granted Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the action as to all defendants. Although Community Realty Property Management, Inc. and VMM Irrevocable Trust had not moved to dismiss, the court dismissed the claims against them on its own because they were in a position similar to the moving defendants and Glaude did not make specific allegations against them. The court dismissed the action without leave to amend. It denied Glaude’s motions for a preliminary injunction and for judgment on the pleadings as moot.