Hancock v. Citimortgage Incorporated et al
Court Docket Sheet

District of Arizona

2:2014-cv-00431 (azd)

RESPONSE in Opposition re: {{15}} MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : I, II, VII, IX, and XII Citimortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss filed by Gregory S Hancock.

Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 1 of 17 1 Gary A. Gotto, No. 007401 James A. Bloom, No. 026643 2 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 3 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2643 (602) 248-0088 4 ggotto@kellerrohrback.com jbloom@kellerrohrback.com 5 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 10 Gregory S. Hancock, KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 Plaintiff, No. CV-14-00431-PHX-GMS PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 vs. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN SUITE 1400 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 13 Citimortgage, Inc. and Quality Loan Service CITIMORTGAGE, INC.’S Corp., MOTION TO DISMISS 14 Defendants. (Oral Argument Requested) 15 16 17 Plaintiff Gregory S. Hancock ("Plaintiff" or "Hancock") hereby respectfully 18 submits this response to Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.’s ("Citi") Motion to Dismiss 19 (the "Motion") Counts I, II, VII, IX and XII of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 20 ("FAC"). For the reasons set forth below, Citi’s arguments are groundless. 21 I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 In 2008, Hancock borrowed $640,800 from Citi (the "Loan"), which was 23 secured by a "Deed of Trust" on six parcels of real property (the "Lots"). (FAC ¶¶ 8-24 9). In July 2009, Citi entered into a "Letter Agreement" with Hancock, whereby 25 Hancock would sell the remaining Lots and pay the proceeds to Citi (the "Short 26 Sales"), and Citi would release the Deed of Trust, waive any deficiency, and report Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 2 of 17 1 that the Loan had been paid in full for less than the full value to the credit reporting 2 bureaus. (FAC ¶¶ 13-28). 3 Hancock sold the Lots and paid the proceeds to Citi pursuant to the Letter 4 Agreement. (FAC ¶¶ 25-26). But unbeknownst to Hancock, Citi did not fulfill any of 5 its responsibilities under the Letter Agreement. (FAC ¶¶ 29, 32, 35-40). Citi has not 6 recorded a release of the Deed of Trust (FAC ¶ 29), although Citi and its agents have 7 recorded two partial releases.1 Starting in April of 2011, Citi began making monthly 8 derogatory reports to the credit reporting bureaus regarding Hancock and the Loan. 9 (FAC ¶¶ 40, 42(b)-(d)). Citi continued making derogatory reports well into 2013. Id. 10 And while Citi made certain changes to its ongoing reporting, it never corrected its KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 earlier erroneous reports. Id. In 2013, Citi retained Quality Loan Service Corp. PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 ("QLS") to collect on the Loan and to sell the Lots. (FAC ¶¶ 35-36). QLS then SUITE 1400 13 recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale in the Pinal County Recorder’s Office and began 14 collection efforts. Id. For unknown reasons, QLS cancelled the initial Notice of 15 Trustee’s Sale, recorded a second Notice of Trustee’s Sale, and then cancelled the 16 second sale as well. (FAC ¶ 38). 17 On January 30, 2014, Hancock filed a complaint (the "Original Complaint") in 18 Maricopa County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1-1). Citi removed the action to this Court 19 on March 4, 2014. (ECF No. 1). Following a telephonic conference with counsel for 20 Citi and QLS, Hancock filed the FAC on March 28, 2014. (ECF No. 12). Citi filed the 21 instant Motion on April 11, 2014. (ECF No. 15). QLS answered the FAC on April 14, 22 2014. (ECF No. 17). 23... 24 25 1 First American Title Company recorded a partial release of the Deed of Trust relating to one of the Lots in 2013. (FAC ¶ 39). However, since filing the FAC, Plaintiff has 26 learned that Citi filed another partial release on March 17, 2014, relating to a different Lot. 2 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 3 of 17 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD ON A MOTION TO DISMISS 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain 3 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." While "a 4 complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to'state a claim to 5 relief that is plausible on its face,’" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), 6 "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged 7 generally." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). 8 III. ARGUMENT 9 A. Counts VII and IX Are Not Preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act 10 Hancock alleges state common law defamation and invasion of privacy claims KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 based on Citi’s malicious and/or willfully false statements to various credit reporting PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 bureaus regarding the Loan. (FAC Counts VII and IX). Citi argues that these claims SUITE 1400 13 are preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ("FCRA"). 14 (Motion at 3-6). 15 The FCRA generally preempts state laws "to the extent that those laws are 16 inconsistent with [the FCRA], and then only to the extent of the inconsistency." 15 17 U.S.C. § 1691t(a). The FCRA also contains another, more specific preemption 18 provision which provides that "no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the 19 nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting 20 of information against … any person who furnishes information to a consumer 21 reporting agency… except as to false information furnished with malice or willful 22 intent to injure such consumer." 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e). In 1996, the FCRA was 23 amended to include § 1681t(b)(1)(F), which prohibits states from imposing laws 24 "relating to the responsibilities of persons who furnish information to consumer 25 reporting agencies…." See Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-452. (1996). 26 This Court has concluded that §§ 1681h(e) and 1681t(b)(1)(F) can be read 3 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 4 of 17 1 together, and that state law defamation and privacy claims related to furnishing credit 2 information are not preempted, at least not where, as here, the furnisher acted with 3 malice or willful intent to injure. Loomis v. United States Bank Home Mortg., 912 F. 4 Supp. 2d 848, 853-56 (D. Ariz. 2012) (explaining that when Congress added 5 § 1681t(b)(1)(F) it also amended § 1681h(e), thus "clearly establishing Congress’ 6 intent that both sections remained in effect."); Home Care Servs. v. Advanta Bank 7 Corp., No. 09-2518 (D. Ariz., June 15, 2010). Citi eventually concedes that "Arizona 8 recognizes a limited pre-emption exception for maliciousness in the case of 9 defamation-type claims." (Motion at 6 n.3). 10 In spite of that concession, Citi argues that unless a plaintiff also asserts (or also KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 can assert) a federal statutory claim under § 1681s-2(b)—which requires reporting PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 bureaus and furnishers to reinvestigate a report if disputed by the consumer—that SUITE 1400 13 plaintiff cannot bring state law defamation or privacy claims, regardless of malice. But 14 § 1681h(e) specifically exempts from preemption defamation claims based on 15 maliciously or willfully false credit information furnished to a credit bureau. Thus 16 Hancock's claims in Counts VII and IX are consistent with the statute, and, as such, 17 they are not preempted because only inconsistent state laws are preempted. See 18 § 1681t(a). While failing to reinvestigate and correct erroneous information pursuant 19 to § 1681s-2(b) can give rise to liability under §§ 1681n and o, there is simply nothing 20 in the statute that suggests that absent such liability state law defamation claims cannot 21 be brought. E.g., Rivera v. Countrywide Financial Corp., 2006 WL 2431391, **2-6 22 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 21, 2006) (dismissing FCRA claims because plaintiff did not dispute 23 the report as required by FCRA, but allowing state law claims to go forward. To the 24 extent Citi suggests that § 1681t(b)(1)(F) imposes such a requirement, that argument is 25 no different than the argument that § 1681t(b)(1)(F) completely subsumes § 26 1681h(e)—an argument rejected by this court in Home Care Servs. and Loomis. 4 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 5 of 17 1 The two cases cited by Citi are Roybal v. Equifax, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (E.D. 2 Cal. 2005), and Woods v. Protection One Alarm Monit., Inc., 628 F. Supp. 2d 1173 3 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Neither is persuasive. In Roybal, the plaintiffs did not assert state law 4 defamation claims, and the court remarked that the plaintiffs failed to argue that their 5 claims were not preempted. 405 F. Supp. 2d at 1181. Instead, the plaintiffs "merely 6 urge[d] the Court to dismiss their Federal Claims and remand the remaining State 7 Claims to the state court." Id. As such, the court in Roybal made no analysis of 8 whether the claims survived under § 1681h(e). Id. at 1181-82. Roybal thus has no 9 bearing on the issues here. 10 In Woods, the court concluded that § 1681t(b)(1)(F) impliedly overruled KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 § 1681h(e). The court made no mention of the fact that Congress amended § 1681h(e) PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 when it added § 1681t(b)(1)(F), as discussed in Home Care Servs. and Loomis. In SUITE 1400 13 addition, the court concluded that the erroneous information that formed the basis of 14 plaintiffs’ claims against the furnishers only appeared on the reports because of a 15 reporting bureau’s error. Woods, 628 F. Supp. 2d at 1176. Here, on the other hand, the 16 FAC concerns erroneous reports made by Citi with knowledge of and/or reckless 17 disregard as to their falsity (FAC ¶ 42), allegations which must be taken as true on a 18 motion to dismiss. The court in Woods also criticized plaintiffs, noting that they had 19 taken virtually no discovery despite the court ordering them to do so, id. at 1176-77 & 20 1197-98, and that their response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on 21 the issue of preemption and malice "consist[ed] of one paragraph wherein they 22 contend that they have alleged and proved malice…." Id. at 1185. 23 Citi also argues, in a footnote, that Hancock "has not adequately pled 24 maliciousness..." (MTD at 6 n.3), because, it argues, Hancock did not dispute the 25 information pursuant to § 1681s-2(b). But there is no requirement of a formal dispute 26 to establish malice. Instead, malice need only be alleged generally, see Rule 9(b), and 5 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 6 of 17 1 requires only that the "publication [was] made'with knowledge that it was false or 2 with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’" Home Care Servs., at 10 3 (quoting Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1168 (9th Cir. 2009) 4 and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964)). The FAC alleges 5 that Citi either willfully or maliciously knew that the reports were false when it made 6 them. (FAC ¶ 42). That is sufficient to plausibly allege malice. 7 B. Hancock Has Standing to Assert Count II 8 Arizona’s public records law provides that: 9 A person who acknowledges, certifies, notarizes, procures or offers to be filed, registered or recorded in a public office in this state an instrument 10 he knows to be false or forged, which, if genuine, could be filed, KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 registered or recorded under any law of this state or the United States, or 11 in compliance with established procedure is guilty of a class 6 felony. As PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE used in this section "instrument" includes a written instrument as defined ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 in § 13-2001. SUITE 1400 13 A.R.S. § 39-161. 14 Arizona recognizes that negligent violations of § 39-161 amount to negligence 15 per se. See Steinberger v. McVey ex rel. County of Maricopa, 318 P.3d 419, 432-34 16 (Ariz. App. 2014). Hancock alleges that when Citi procured QLS to record the false 17 Notices of Trustee’s Sale, Citi was negligent per se in light of § 39-161. (FAC Count 18 II). 19 Although captioned simply as a standing challenge, Citi really makes two 20 arguments with respect to Count II: first, that Hancock has insufficiently alleged the 21 falsity of the Notices of Trustee’s Sale, and second, that Hancock is not among the 22 class of people protected by § 39-161, and thus, Citi argues, he lacks standing. 23 1. The FAC Plausibly Alleges the Falsity of the Notices of Trustee’s Sale 24 The FAC alleges that in the Notices of Trustee’s Sale, Citi represented that the 25 Lots were "trust property" and that Citi possessed the authority to sell the lots pursuant 26 to the "power of sale" under the Deed of Trust. (FAC ¶ 35). But Citi did not have any 6 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 7 of 17 1 power of sale authority and the Lots were not trust property because the Loan had been 2 satisfied and the Deed of Trust discharged. (FAC ¶ 27). Thus the representations in the 3 Notices of Trustee’s Sale that Citi had such authority and that the Lots were still trust 4 property were false per § 39-161. 5 2. Hancock Is Among the Class of Persons Protected by A.R.S. § 39-161 6 Citi also argues that "the class of persons to be protected—and thus able to 7 assert a claim for negligence per se under § 39-161—is limited to those'adversely 8 affected by a cloud on title due to the recording of a false instrument.’" MTD at 7 9 (citing Steinberger). This is a misreading both of Steinberger and the statute itself. 10 Section 39-161, by its terms, is not limited to mortgage related documents KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 recorded with the various county recorders. Instead, the statute applies to any PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 "instrument" that is "filed, registered or recorded in a public office."2 SUITE 1400 13 In Lewis v. State, 256 P. 1049 (Ariz. 1927), the Arizona Supreme Court upheld 14 the conviction under the statute3 of a man who had submitted an application to the 15 state of Arizona for a loan of state funds that included forged signatures and affidavits. 16 The defendant in Lewis argued that the statute applied only to recorded documents 17 purporting to assign or create rights to real property, but the Arizona Supreme Court 18 rejected that argument. Id. At 1050. Instead, the court held that it applied to any 19 written public record, because the "express purpose" of the statute was "preventing the 20 filing or recording of any false instrument no matter what its nature, if that instrument 21 was of a character which the state considered important enough to make the instrument 22 23 2 The statute also defines the term "instrument" to include a "written instrument" 24 under A.R.S. § 13-2001, which in turn defines "written instrument" to include "[a]ny paper, document or other instrument that contains written or printed matter or its 25 equivalent." 26 3 At that time, the statute was codified at § 108 of the Arizona Penal Code of 1913, but was in all material respects identical to the statute today. 7 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 8 of 17 1 a public record." Id.; see also State v. Royer, 724 P.2d 587 (Ariz. App. 1986) 2 (upholding conviction under § 39-161 of a man who falsely represented his criminal 3 background on a renewal application for a real estate broker license). 4 Nor does the opinion in Steinberger suggest the contrary. Steinberger does note 5 that § 39-161 is designed "‘to protect the integrity of our system of recordation of 6 instruments’ and prevent'the placing of false or fictitious instruments of record which 7 might have the effect to cloud the record.’" Steinberger, 318 P.3d at 433. But 8 Steinberger neither held nor suggested that this was the statute’s only purpose. 9 Because § 39-161 does not simply apply to protect current owners of real 10 property from clouds on their title, but instead applies to protect people from the KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 adverse effects of false information contained in any public record, Hancock is within PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 the class of people that the statute is designed to protect and therefore has standing to SUITE 1400 13 assert his negligence per se claim in Count II. 14 C. The Statute of Limitations Does Not Bar Any of Hancock’s Claims 15 1. Count I Is Not Barred by the Statute of Limitations 16 In Count I, Hancock alleges that Citi violated A.R.S. § 33-707(A) by failing to 17 record a release of the Deed of Trust. A.R.S. § 33-712(A) provides that if no release or 18 satisfaction is recorded within 30 days, the person who received satisfaction is liable to 19 the mortgagor for actual damages caused by the failure to record. 20 Citi argues that this claim is barred by A.R.S. § 541(5), which provides that 21 claims for "liability created by statute" must be brought within one year of the time the 22 cause of action "accrues." (MTD at 8). As to when an action accrues, Citi concedes 23 that it "was unable to locate an Arizona decision addressing accrual of a claim under 24 A.R.S. § 33-712," but nevertheless argues that claims accrue "31 days after the 25 lienholder is to record a release of the satisfied obligation." (MTD at 8). 26 In Arizona, "a plaintiff’s cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff 8 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 9 of 17 1 knows or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should know the facts underlying the 2 cause." Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 898 P.2d 964, 966 3 (Ariz. 1995). Determining when a claim has accrued requires examining the individual 4 plaintiff’s subjective "knowledge, understanding, and acceptance in the aggregate" to 5 see whether these "provided sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action." Walk v. 6 Ring, 44 P.3d 990, 996 (Ariz. 2002). The purpose of this "discovery rule" of accrual 7 "is that it is unjust to deprive a plaintiff of a cause of action before the plaintiff has a 8 reasonable basis for believing that a claim exists." Gust, Rosenfeld, 898 P.2d at 967. 9 Moreover, "determinations of the time when discovery occurs and a cause of action 10 accrues'are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury.’" Walk, 44 P.3d at KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 996 (quoting Doe v. Roe, 955 P.2d 951, 961 (Ariz. 1998)); see also Marquette Venture PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 Partners II, L.P. v. Leonesio, 254 P.3d 418, 423 (Ariz. App. 2011) ("The discovery SUITE 1400 13 issue itself involves questions of reasonableness and knowledge, matters which this 14 court is particularly wary of deciding as a matter of law.") (citations omitted). 15 Applied in this case, the question is when Hancock, an individual seller of real 16 property, should have been aware that his mortgagee (Citi) had failed to record a 17 release or satisfaction of the Deed of Trust after he sold the property. Citi does not 18 argue that Hancock had any subjective knowledge or awareness that no satisfaction or 19 release had been recorded. Instead, Citi argues that because "Pinal County records are 20 publicly available," Hancock "had constructive notice since at least September 1, 2009 21 that Citi had failed to comply with its alleged obligation to record a release…." (MTD 22 at 9). 23 Arizona law is clear that a recorded document is not constructive notice against 24 all people and for all purposes. Long v. City of Glendale, 93 P.3d 519, 525 (Ariz. App. 25 2004) ("[W]hile official records may give constructive notice of some facts, they do so 26 only to those who are bound to search those records."). Sellers of real property have no 9 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 10 of 17 1 general obligation to review the recorded documents after a sale, nor would such a 2 review amount to "reasonable diligence." 66 Am. Jur. 2d Records and Recording Laws 3 § 79 (2014) ("Neither the language nor the policy of the registry statutes is intended to 4 affect the holders of antecedent rights but only such persons as are compelled to search 5 the records in order to protect their own interests. Accordingly, the universal rule is 6 that the record of an instrument is constructive notice to subsequent purchasers and 7 encumbrancers only and does not affect prior parties."); see also Chantler v. Wood, 8 430 P.2d 713, 716 supplemented, 432 P.2d 469 (Ariz. 1967) ("The purpose of the 9 recording statute is to create notice in the form of constructive notice so that a party or 10 his transferee may not claim to be a subsequent purchaser for value without notice."). KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 2. Counts II and XII of the FAC "Relate Back" to the Original Complaint PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 Citi argues that Counts II and XII of the FAC—both of which arise out of Citi’s SUITE 1400 13 hiring of QLS to record the false Notices of Trustee’s Sale—are barred by a one-year 14 statute of limitations that (Citi argues) expired between the time the Original 15 Complaint was filed on January 30, 2014 and the time the Amended Complaint was 16 filed on March 28, 2014. (MTD at 9-10, 12). But because FAC Counts II and XII 17 relate back to the Original Complaint, which was filed on January 30, 2014 (less than 18 one year after Citi argues the statute of limitations began to run), these claims are 19 timely. 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B) provides that an amended pleading "relates back" to 21 an earlier pleading when "the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of 22 the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out-or attempted to be set out-in the original 23 pleading." The Ninth Circuit has ruled that "[i]n determining whether an amended 24 cause of action is to relate back, the emphasis is not on the legal theory of the action, 25 but whether the specified conduct of the defendant, upon which the plaintiff is relying 26 to enforce his amended claim, is identifiable with the original claim." FDIC v. 10 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 11 of 17 1 Jackson, 133 F.3d 694, 702 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Martell v. Trilogy Ltd., 872 F.2d 2 322, 327 (9th Cir. 1989) (a district court should "analyze[] the two pleadings to 3 determine whether they share a common core of operative facts sufficient to impart 4 fair notice of the transaction, occurrence, or conduct called into question.").4 And 5 where, as here, the new claim relates only to "an existing defendant," the "relation 6 back standard is more leniently applied...." U.S. ex rel. Cericola v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage 7 Assoc., 529 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Martell, 872 F.2d at 324). 8 In Count II of the Original Complaint, Hancock alleged that "Citi recorded 9 and/or caused to be recorded... the Notices of Trustee’s Sale" and that "[a]t the time… 10 Citi… knew and/or had reason to know that the Notices of Trustee’s Sale were KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 groundless, contained material misstatements and false claims, and were invalid." (OC PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 ¶¶ 49-50). Count II of the FAC alleges that "Citi procured QLS to record" the Notices SUITE 1400 13 of Trustee’s Sale, and that "[a]t the time… Citi knew, should have known, or 14 recklessly acted in gross and wanton disregard as to whether the Notices of Trustee’s 15 Sale were groundless, contained material misstatements and false claims, and/or were 16 invalid." (FAC ¶¶ 51-52). Count II of the FAC plainly relates back. 17 Count XII of the FAC alleges that, to the extent that, at the time it hired QLS, 18 Citi misrepresented to QLS that Hancock owed money on the Loan and that the Deed 19 of Trust was still valid, but failed to disclose that the Loan and Deed of Trust had been 20 discharged by the Short Sales, then Citi is liable for defamation. Count XII relates 21 back to the Original Complaint because it arises out of the same "conduct, transaction, 22 or occurrence" as that underlying Counts II, VIII, and X in the Original Complaint. 23 24 4 See also WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1497 ("The fact 25 that an amendment changes the legal theory on which the action initially was brought 26 is of no consequence if the factual situation upon which the action depends remains the same and has been brought to defendant’s attention by the original pleading."). 11 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 12 of 17 1 ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pacific R. Co., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Id. 2013) is 2 instructive. In that case, the plaintiff asserted a claim arising out of certain mining 3 activities. Id. at 1199. The original complaint alleged that the mining took place at the 4 "Coeur d’Alene Site," a 1,500-square mile area, and specifically identified that the 5 mining had taken place along the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River. Id. at 1200-6 01. The original complaint did not mention the North Fork of that river. Id. The 7 amended complaint added specific reference to the North Fork, and the court found 8 that the amendment related back. Id. The court reasoned that "the Coeur d’Alene Basin 9 geographical area is large and encompasses both the North and South Forks of the 10 Coeur d’Alene River." Id. at 1201. And even though the amended complaint "more KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 specifically describes the claims relating to [a certain mine] and North Fork," the PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 claims arose "out of the same conduct and share[d] a common core of operative facts." SUITE 1400 13 Id. Here, the allegations that Citi may have mislead QLS about the status of the loan 14 simply add specificity regarding Citi’s retention of QLS to record the false Notices of 15 Trustee’s Sale. 16 Because the claims asserted in Counts II and XII in the FAC arose out of the 17 same "conduct, transaction, or occurrence" set forth in the Original Complaint (that is, 18 Citi’s retention of QLS to file the false Notices of Trustee’s Sale), they relate back for 19 purposes of the statute of limitations and are, as such, timely.5 20 21 22 5 23 Citi mentions Rule 15(c) only in a footnote, arguing that the new claims were not "set out or attempted to be set out in the original Complaint, and do not relate back to 24 the filing of the original Complaint." (MTD at 9 n.4). In support, Citi cites Meijer, Inc. v. Biovail Corp., 533 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2008). But Meijer is readily distinguished 25 from this case, because there, plaintiffs added new claims against both existing and new defendants based on conduct that was not at issue in the original complaint. 26 12 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 13 of 17 1 3. Even if Count II Did Not Relate Back, the Statute of Limitations Is Two Years Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-542. 2 3 Citi posits that Hancock’s negligence per se theory in Count II is a "‘liability 4 created by statute’ that must be asserted within one year of accrual." (MTD at 9). In 5 Alaface v. Nation Inv. Co., 892 P.2d 1375, 1387-88 (Ariz. App. 1994), the Arizona 6 Court of Appeals concluded that the statute of limitations in a negligence per se claim 7 was two years pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-542. The court rejected the argument that the 8 one-year statute of limitations for "liability created by statute" in A.R.S. § 12-541(3) 9 applies, at least where the elements of the negligence action are different from the 10 elements of the statutory action. Id. The elements are different in this case, because, KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE for example, no breach of duty or damages must be proven in a criminal prosecution ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 under A.R.S. § 39-161, while those are elements of the negligence per se claim here. SUITE 1400 13 Because Hancock’s negligence per se claim in Count II is therefore a personal action 14 per A.R.S. § 12-542, and not a liability created by statute under A.R.S. § 12-541, the 15 two-year statute of limitations in § 12-542 applies. The two-year statute of limitations 16 had not yet run when the FAC was filed. 17 4. Counts VII and IX Are Not Barred by the Statute of Limitations 18 Citi also argues that Counts VII and IX—Hancock’s defamation and false light 19 claims related to the credit reporting—are barred by the one-year statute of limitations 20 in A.R.S. § 12-541. (MTD at 10-12). Citi’s arguments fail for a number of reasons. 21 First, under Arizona law, invasion of privacy claims are subject to a two-year 22 limitations period. Hansen v. Stoll, 636 P.2d 1236, 1242 (Ariz. App. 1981). 23 Second, the discovery rule determines accrual of both the defamation and 24 invasion of privacy claims at issue here. Gaona v. U.S. Investigations Servs. Prof. 25 Servs. Div., Inc., 2013 WL 1748361, No. 12-8211 (D. Ariz. Apr. 23, 2013) ("[T]he 26 discovery rule in defamation cases is no different than the discovery rule in other types 13 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 14 of 17 1 of cases.") (citing Dube v. Likins, 167 P.3d 93 (Ariz. App. 2007) ("Dube")).6 2 Citi argues that as a matter of law Hancock "reasonably should have known" 3 about the false credit reporting when Hancock received collection calls from Citi. 4 (Motion at 11). As explained above in Part III.C.1, this is a jury question. E.g., Walk, 5 44 P.3d at 996 ("[D]eterminations of the time when discovery occurs and a cause of 6 action accrues are usually and necessarily questions of fact for the jury.") (citations 7 omitted); Marquette Venture Partners, 254 P.3d at 423 ("The discovery issue itself 8 involves questions of reasonableness and knowledge, matters which this court is 9 particularly wary of deciding as a matter of law.") (citations omitted). Thus whether 10 Hancock should have inferred that Citi was falsely slandering his credit because it KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 made collection calls is not resolvable as a matter of law, especially without the PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 development of a factual record regarding what Citi said, to whom, and when, and SUITE 1400 13 precisely what Hancock knew or thought, why, and when. 14 The cases cited by Citi are distinguishable. In Thompson v. Pima County, 243 15 P.3d 1024 (Ariz. App. 2010), the court granted summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 16 (dismissal pursuant to Rule 12) based on the plaintiffs’ actual knowledge of all the 17 facts necessary to support their claim. Mayer Unified School Dist. v. Winkleman, 201 18 P.3d 523 (Ariz. 2009) affirmed dismissal of claims that certain school districts brought 19 in 2003 against the State Land Commissioner for failing to collect revenue for 20 easements granted over school trust lands between 1929 and 1967. The court reasoned 21 22 23 6 Citi cites Boatman v. Samaritan Health Servs., 812 P.2d 1025, 1031 (Ariz. App. 1990) and Lim v. Superior Court, 616 P.2d 941, 942 (Ariz. App. 1980) for the 24 proposition that the one-year statute of limitations for defamation in A.R.S. § 12-541(1) "commences to run at the time of publication." (MTD at 10). But these cases 25 have been supplanted by the recent decisions in Dube and Gust, Doe, and Walk (cited supra Part III.C.1). 26 Citi also questions the force of the rationale in Clark v. Airesearch Mfg. Co., 673 P.2d 984, 986-87 (Ariz. App. 1983) that the discovery ruled applies to defamation in a credit report. On the contrary, in Dube the Arizona Court of Appeals favorably 14 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 15 of 17 1 that the claims accrued in 1967 when the United States Supreme Court rendered a 2 decision specifically addressing the easements. Id. at 527-28. The court also pointed 3 out that the plaintiffs had "actual notice" of the easements in question based on a letter 4 they sent to the State Land Commissioner more than a year prior to bringing the 5 lawsuit. Id. at 528 n.7. Here, on the other hand, Citi does not argue that Hancock had 6 actual knowledge of the erroneous credit reports or that there were previous court 7 decisions regarding those particular reports more than a year before the complaint was 8 filed, but that he should have discovered the reports. As explained above, what he 9 should have known in this case is a jury question. 10 Third, under Arizona law, "[e]ach communication of a defamatory statement, KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 11 even though identical in content, constitutes a separate publication, giving rise to a PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 separate cause of action." State v. Superior Court In & For Cnty. of Maricopa, 921 SUITE 1400 13 P.2d 697, 702 (Ariz. App. 1996) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS (1979) 14 ("REST.") § 577A(1) & cmt. a). Here, Citi continued to make false credit reports until 15 at least July 2013, well less than one year before the Original Complaint was filed in 16 January 2014. (FAC ¶¶ 40, 42(b)-(d)). There can, as such, be no doubt that Hancock’s 17 defamation and false light invasion of privacy claims are not time barred to the extent 18 that they relate to credit information Citi furnished within one or two years, 19 respectively, prior to January of 2014. 20 In addition, Citi apparently made several alterations to the information it was 21 reporting during 2013. Even though the information it had previously reported would 22 have been obviously false in light of those alterations, Citi apparently made no effort 23 to correct its earlier reporting. (FAC ¶ 42(d)). Furnishers of credit information–like 24 Citi here—intend for people to rely on the information they report, and Citi effectively 25 26 cited Clark and greatly expanded its rationale to apply to all defamation claims, not just those involving credit reports. 15 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 16 of 17 1 republished its earlier reporting when it failed to correct it when making the 2 alterations.7 As such, Citi’s failure in 2013 to correct its earlier erroneous credit 3 reporting is, in and of itself, a defamatory act which occurred within one year of the 4 filing of the Complaint. 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 For these reasons, Citi’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied in all respects. 7 DATED this 28th day of April, 2014. 8 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 9 By:/s/James A. Bloom Gary A. Gotto 10 James A. Bloom KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 11 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE Attorneys for Plaintiff ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 SUITE 1400 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7 E.g., REST. § 577(2) ("One who intentionally and unreasonably fails to remove defamatory matter that he knows to be exhibited on land or chattels in his possession or under his control is subject to liability for its continued publication."). 16 Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 18 Filed 04/28/14 Page 17 of 17 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on April 28, 2014, the foregoing Plaintiff’s Response in 3 Opposition to Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss was electronically 4 transmitted to the Clerk’s office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of 5 a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants (and by e-mail and 6 mail if not registered): 7 John G. Kerkorian Sara V. Ransom 8 BALLARD SPAHR LLP One East Washington Street, Suite 2300 9 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 kerkorianj@ballardspahr.com 10 ransoms@ballardspahr.com KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. TEL. (602) 248-0088 FAX (602) 248-2822 Attorneys for Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. 11 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012-2643 3101 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE Paul M. Levine ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12 McCARTHY, HOLTHUS & LEVINE SUITE 1400 8502 East Via de Ventura, Suite 200 13 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 plevine@mhlevine.com 14 Attorneys for Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation 15 By:/s/Karen L. Trumpower 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17

ORDER, denying Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Gregory S Hancock's First Amended Complaint {{15}} ; granting Plaintiff Gregory S Hancock's Motion for Leave to File Proposed Second Amended Complaint {{51}} ; Plaintiff shall file the Second Amended Complaint on the docket within two days of entry of this Order; Defendants shall answer the Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of the date on which the Second Amended Complaint is filed. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 12/17/14.

Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 63 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 8 1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Gregory S. Hancock, No. CV-14-00431-PHX-JJT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 CitiMortgage, Inc. and Quality Loan Service Corp., 13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue are the following motions: Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.’s Motion to 16 Dismiss Plaintiff Gregory S. Hancock’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15), to which 17 Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 18) and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 20); and Plaintiff 18 Gregory S. Hancock’s Motion for Leave to File Proposed Second Amended Complaint 19 (Doc. 51), to which no Defendant filed a response. The Court finds these matters 20 appropriate for decision without oral argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f). For the reasons that 21 follow, the Court denies CitiMortgage, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and grants Plaintiff’s 22 Motion for Leave to File Proposed Second Amended Complaint. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants CitiMortgage, 25 Inc. ("Citi") and Quality Loan Service Corp. ("QLSC") in Maricopa County Superior 26 Court, asserting several causes of action arising from the Defendants’ alleged failure to 27 honor a loan satisfaction agreement and subsequent actions in pursuit of the purportedly 28 satisfied debt. (Doc. 1-1, "Compl.") On March 28, 2014, after Citi removed the case to Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 63 Filed 12/17/14 Page 2 of 8 1 this Court, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12.) On April 11, 2014, Citi 2 filed its Motion to Dismiss.1 (Doc. 15, "Mot.") Plaintiff responded to Citi’s Motion and 3 subsequently moved to file a Second Amended Complaint on October 9, 2014. (Doc. 51-4 2, "SAC.") In the interest of efficiency, the Court now elects to evaluate Citi’s Motion to 5 Dismiss as against the SAC. 6 The SAC alleges the following facts, which the Court accepts as true for the 7 purposes of deciding the Motion to Dismiss. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 8 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). In August 2008, Plaintiff borrowed $640,800 from Citi ("the loan") 9 evidenced by a note and secured by a deed of trust on six parcels of real property. (SAC 10 ¶¶ 7, 8.) Two months later, Plaintiff filed for Bankruptcy in the Unites States Bankruptcy 11 Court for the District of Arizona. (SAC ¶ 11.) In July 2009, Plaintiff and a Citi Vice 12 President entered into a binding agreement ("the letter agreement") whereby Plaintiff 13 would sell three properties through bankruptcy-approved short sales. (SAC ¶¶ 15-19, 20, 14 23.) The letter agreement stated that Citi would accept the proceeds from the short sales, 15 waive any outstanding debt on the loan, and report that the loan had been paid in full for 16 less than full value to credit reporting bureaus. (SAC ¶ 24.) Plaintiff followed the terms 17 of the letter agreement. (SAC ¶¶ 28, 29.) However, Citi failed to record a release or 18 satisfaction of the deed of trust with the Pinal County Recorder’s Office, as it had agreed 19 to do in the letter agreement. (SAC ¶ 31.) 20 Citi maintained a regularly-updated electronic record ("ER") regarding the loan, 21 the bankruptcy proceeding and the letter agreement. (SAC ¶¶ 25, 32, 83-86.) According 22 to Plaintiff, the ER demonstrates that Citi had actual and constructive notice on June 8, 23 2011, that: (1) the Bankruptcy Court approved the short sales based on Plaintiff’s belief 24 that Citi would accept proceeds in satisfaction of the loan; (2) Citi had received proceeds 25 from the short sales; and (3) the Bankruptcy Court approved Plaintiff’s plan of 26 reorganization and terminated his bankruptcy proceeding in 2011. (SAC ¶ 42.) 27 28 1 The other Defendant in this matter, QSLC, answered the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) and took no part in the briefing on Citi’s Motion.-2-Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 63 Filed 12/17/14 Page 3 of 8 1 From April 2011 to March 2012, Citi contacted Plaintiff repeatedly regarding the 2 loan, and Plaintiff disputed that he owed anything on the loan. (SAC ¶¶ 53, 56.) On or 3 about September 25, 2013, Plaintiff received a copy of his credit report from Experian, a 4 credit reporting agency, that suggested that Citi had not followed the terms of the letter 5 agreement. (SAC ¶ 59.) Thereafter, the ER included a January 4, 2013, notation that 6 Citi’s foreclosure team referred the loan to foreclosure "even though they believed that 7 the loan had been discharged in bankruptcy." (SAC ¶ 61.) On January 7, 2013, Citi 8 recorded a Substitution of Trustee with the Pinal County Recorder’s Office, appointing 9 QLSC as successor trustee. (SAC ¶¶ 62, 63.) QLSC recorded Notices of Trustee’s Sale 10 on May 1, 2013, and June 12, 2013. (SAC ¶¶ 70-71, 75.) 11 On the basis of the preceding allegations, Plaintiff makes the following claims: 12 Citi violated A.R.S. § 33-707(A) by failing to record a release or satisfaction of the deed 13 of trust (Count I) (SAC ¶¶ 89, 90); Citi is liable under a theory of negligence per se 14 because it violated A.R.S. § 39-161 by knowingly or wantonly disregarding material 15 misstatements in arranging for Defendant QLSC to record the Notice of Trustee’s Sale 16 and March 2014 partial reconveyance (Count II) (SAC ¶¶ 93-97); Citi defamed Plaintiff 17 by publishing false written statements to Experian and false information to Defendant 18 QLSC (Counts VII and XII) (SAC ¶¶ 110-16, 139-46); and Citi acted knowingly and/or 19 maliciously when it transmitted written reports to Experian about Plaintiff, and recorded 20 the deed of trust in a false light that would be offensive to a reasonable person (Count IX) 21 (SAC ¶ 126-28). 22 Citi seeks to dismiss Counts I, II, VII, IX, and XII. (Mot. at 1.) Citi first argues 23 that the Court should dismiss Counts VII and IX (state law defamation and false light 24 invasion of privacy, respectively) because the alleged conduct is regulated under the 25 federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), which preempts state law claims pertaining 26 to credit reporting activities. (Mot. at 3-4.) Citi next argues the Court should dismiss 27 Count II because Plaintiff is not within the class of persons that A.R.S. § 39-161 is meant 28 to protect and Plaintiff therefore has no standing to maintain a negligence per se claim-3-Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 63 Filed 12/17/14 Page 4 of 8 1 arising from a violation of that statute. (Mot. at 6.) Finally, Citi contends that all Counts 2 should be dismissed as time-barred. (Mot. at 7-12.) 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under Fed. R. 5 Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the well-pled factual allegations are taken as true and construed in the 6 light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cousins, 568 F.3d at 1067. Legal 7 conclusions couched as factual allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth, 8 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009), and therefore are insufficient to defeat a 9 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d 1103, 10 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). Generally, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 8(a) governs and requires that a plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to 12 relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 13 III. ANALYSIS 14 As an initial matter, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to file the SAC (Doc. 52), 15 which Defendants have not opposed, as it is within the deadline contemplated in this 16 Court’s August 14, 2014, Order (Doc. 47). The Court finds that the SAC renders moot 17 Citi’s arguments in the Motion to Dismiss regarding the statute of limitations ("SOL") 18 with regards to Counts I, VII and IX. (See Mot. at 8-11.) The remainder of this Order will 19 therefore only address Citi’s arguments concerning preemption as to Counts VII and IX, 20 standing as to Count II and SOL violations as to Counts II and XII. 21 A. Preemption 22 Citi contends that the Court should dismiss Counts VII and IX (state law 23 defamation and false light invasion of privacy, respectively) because the allegedly 24 defamatory conduct – i.e., publishing false information to Experian – is regulated under 25 the FCRA, which preempts state law claims pertaining to credit reporting activities. (Mot. 26 at 3-4 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2).) Citi concedes the existence of "a preemption 27 exception for maliciousness in the case of defamation-type claims," but argues that (1) 28 Plaintiff has not adequately pled maliciousness, and (2) even if Plaintiff adequately pled-4-Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 63 Filed 12/17/14 Page 5 of 8 1 maliciousness, he has no standing under the FCRA because he did not dispute the 2 allegedly false information with the appropriate credit reporting agencies. (Mot. at 5.) 3 The Court rejects Citi’s arguments. While the FCRA generally preempts state laws 4 "to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with [FCRA]," 15 U.S.C. § 1691t(a), 5 claims based on allegations of "false information furnished with malice or willful intent 6 to injure [the] consumer" are exempted from preemption under § 1681h(e). See Loomis 7 v. U.S. Bank Home Mortg., 912 F. Supp. 2d 848, 852-56 (D. Ariz. 2012) (holding that a 8 state law defamation claim was not preempted by the FCRA because "§ 1681h(e) 9 provides an exception for four specific common law torts including defamation, libel, 10 negligence, and invasion of privacy when a plaintiff alleges malice or willful intent to 11 injure"). 12 Rule 9(b) states that "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a 13 person’s mind may be alleged generally." Plaintiff has alleged, with abundant factual 14 support, that Citi knew that the reports were false at the time it made them. (See SAC ¶¶ 15 42, 50-58, 83-86, 115, 128.) Plaintiff’s allegations are therefore sufficient to establish 16 malice. See Currier v. Western Newspapers, Inc., 855 P.2d 1351, 1353 (Ariz. 1993) 17 (defining malice as "knowledge that [the defamatory statement] was false or with 18 reckless disregard of whether it was false or not") (citing New York Times v. Sullivan, 19 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)); see also Loomis, 912 F. Supp. 2d at 859-60. 20 Finally, the Court finds unconvincing Citi’s assertion that Plaintiff must 21 nonetheless have standing under the FCRA to assert his state law claims. Citi provides no 22 support for the proposition that Plaintiff needs standing under a statute from which none 23 of his claims arise, and the Court is aware of none. Accordingly, the Court denies Citi’s 24 motion to dismiss Counts VII and IX on preemption grounds. 25 B. Negligence Per Se 26 Citi next contends that the Court should dismiss Count II – negligence per se 27 arising from a violation of A.R.S. § 39-1612 – because Plaintiff is not within the class of 28 2 A.R.S. § 39-161 provides that: "A person who acknowledges, certifies, notarizes,-5-Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 63 Filed 12/17/14 Page 6 of 8 1 persons that A.R.S. § 39-161 is meant to protect. (Mot. at 6-7.) Specifically, Citi argues 2 that a claim of negligence per se under A.R.S. § 39-161 "is limited to those'adversely 3 affected by a cloud on title due to the recording of a false instrument.’" (Mot. at 7 (citing 4 Steinberger v. McVey, 318 P.3d 419, 432-34 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014)).) According to Citi, 5 because Plaintiff does not hold or own title to the properties that are allegedly 6 encumbered by false documents, Plaintiff is not adversely affected by a cloud on title due 7 to the recording of a false instrument and therefore lacks standing to bring a negligence 8 per se claim arising from an alleged violation of A.R.S. § 39-161. (Reply at 4.) 9 The holding in Steinberger is not as narrow as Citi contends. See 318 P.3d at 433. 10 While the court did hold that A.R.S. § 39-161 "is intended to protect anyone who is 11 adversely affected by a cloud on title due to the recording of a false instrument," it did 12 not hold that it is intended to protect only those people. See id. Nor does the language of 13 the statute imply such a limited effect. As Plaintiff correctly notes, A.R.S. § 39-161 14 defines the term "instrument" to include "a written instrument as defined in § 13-2001," 15 which in turn defines a "written instrument" as "[a]ny paper, document or other 16 instrument that contains written or printed matter." In addition, the statute has been 17 applied broadly in criminal proceedings. See, e.g., State v. Royer, 724 P.2d 587 (Ariz. Ct. 18 App. 1986) (upholding conviction under A.R.S. § 39-161 of a defendant who 19 misrepresented his criminal history when applying to renew his real estate broker’s 20 license). Given the statute’s breadth, the Court rejects Citi’s argument that it is meant to 21 protect only those who are adversely affected by a cloud on title. Citi’s motion to dismiss 22 Plaintiff’s negligence per se claim (Count II) is therefore denied. 23 24 25 26 procures or offers to be filed, registered or recorded in a public office in this state an instrument he knows to be false or forged, which, if genuine, could be filed, registered or 27 recorded under any law of this state or the United States, or in compliance with established procedure is guilty of a class 6 felony. As used in this section'instrument’ 28 includes a written instrument as defined in § 13-2001."-6-Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 63 Filed 12/17/14 Page 7 of 8 1 C. Statute of Limitations 2 Finally, Citi contends that Plaintiff’s negligence per se (Count II) and defamation 3 (Count XII) claims should be dismissed as time-barred. (Mot. at 7.) Citi relies on A.R.S. 4 § 12-541(5), which requires plaintiffs to bring claims pursuant to statutes within one year 5 of the accrual date, to argue that the SOL has run on Count II. Similarly, Citi relies on 6 A.R.S. § 12-541(1), which requires claims "for injuries done to the character or 7 reputation" to be asserted within one year of the date on which they accrue, to argue that 8 the SOL has run on Count XII. (Mot. at 10.) 9 Plaintiff responds that Counts II and XII of the SAC relate back to the Complaint 10 filed on January 30, 2014 because they arise "out of the same'conduct, transaction, or 11 occurrence’ set forth in the [Complaint]." (Resp. at 10, 12 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 15(c)(1)(B)).) Plaintiff also argues that even if Count II does not relate back to the 13 Complaint, the SOL is actually two years pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-542. (Resp. at 13.) 14 "An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading 15 when... the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, 16 transaction, or occurrence set out–or attempted to be set out–in the original pleading." 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that "[i]n 18 determining whether an amended cause of action is to relate back, the emphasis is not on 19 the legal theory of the action, but whether the specified conduct of the defendant, upon 20 which the plaintiff is relying to enforce his amended claim, is identifiable with the 21 original claim." F.D.I.C. v. Jackson, 133 F.3d 694, 702 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citation 22 omitted). Where an amended pleading seeks only to add new claims to an original 23 pleading, "the district court should... analyze[] the two pleadings to determine whether 24 they share a common core of operative facts sufficient to impart fair notice of the 25 transaction, occurrence, or conduct called into question." Id. (internal citation omitted) 26 The Court finds that Counts II and XII, as alleged in the SAC, arise out of the 27 conduct alleged in the Complaint. For example, each iteration of Count II, whether in the 28 Complaint or the SAC, arises from the the alleged false recordings in the Pinal County-7-Case 2:14-cv-00431-JJT Document 63 Filed 12/17/14 Page 8 of 8 1 Recorder’s Office. (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50; SAC ¶¶ 94-96.) Similarly, Count XII of the SAC 2 contends that, in working with Defendant QLSC, Citi communicated false information to 3 it, stating Plaintiff was still liable for the Loan, and that the Deed of Trust was valid. 4 (SAC ¶¶ 140-141.) Citi should have been on notice as to Count XII because the 5 Complaint assumes that Citi communicated false information to Defendant QLSC. 6 (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50.) The Court therefore finds that Counts II and XII, as alleged in the 7 SAC, relate back to the Complaint and are not time-barred. 8 III. Conclusion 9 The SAC renders moot Citi’s arguments regarding the statute of limitations as to 10 Counts I, VII and IX. Counts VII and IX are not preempted by the FCRA because 11 Plaintiff adequately alleged maliciousness under the FCRA’s preemption exception. 12 Further, Plaintiff has standing to assert Count II under A.R.S. § 39-161 because the 13 statute protects those adversely affected by falsely recorded instruments. Finally, Counts 14 II and XII relate back to the Complaint and are therefore not time barred. 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.’s 16 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Gregory S. Hancock’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15). 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff Gregory S. Hancock’s Motion 18 for Leave to File Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 51). 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file the Second Amended 20 Complaint on the docket within two days of entry of this Order. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer the Second Amended 22 Complaint within 14 days of the date on which the Second Amended Complaint is filed. 23 Dated this 17th day of December, 2014. 24 25 26 Honorable John J. Tuchi 27 United States District Judge 28-8-

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 614 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
03/04/2014
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Maricopa County Superior Court, case number CV2014-002529. Filing fee received: $400.00, receipt number PHX 0970-10193748 filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated. (submitted by Sara Ransom)
1
Exhibit
2
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025112594490" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025112594490','846624','9','','2','1','',''}};">2</a> Civil Cover Sheet)
2 Attachments
2
03/04/2014
Corporate Disclosure Statement by CitiMortgage Incorporated identifying Corporate Parent Citicorp, Corporate Parent Citigroup Incorporated, Corporate Parent Citicorp USA Incorporated, Corporate Parent CitiBank NA, Corporate Parent CitiFinancial Auto Credit Incorporated, Corporate Parent Citi Retail Services LLC for CitiMortgage Incorporated. (submitted by Sara Ransom)
03/04/2014
*****State Court record received on 3/04/2014*****SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Gregory S Hancock: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint, and Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration upon Quality Loan Service Corporation on 2/13/2014.*****Certificate of Service filed in State Court on 2/18/2014, docketed in U.S. District Court on 3/04/2014 for case management purposes.***** (REK) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Text entry; no document attached.)
03/04/2014
*****State Court record received on 3/04/2014*****SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Gregory S Hancock: Certificate of Service re: Summons, Complaint, and Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration upon CitiMortgage Incorporated on 2/12/2014.*****Certificate of Service filed in State Court on 2/18/2014, docketed in U.S. District Court on 3/04/2014 for case management purposes.***** (REK) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Text entry; no document attached.)
3
03/04/2014
Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX 0970-10193748. This case has been assigned to the Honorable G. Murray Snow. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-14-00431-PHX-GMS. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached.
4
03/05/2014
ORDER that a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) is discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Therefore, the parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss to determine whether it can be avoided. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff serve a copy of this Order upon any Defendant(s) that have not yet appeared in this action and file notice of service. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/5/2014.
5
03/06/2014
NOTICE re: of Service by Gregory S Hancock re: 4 Order.
6
03/10/2014
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
7
03/11/2014
ORDER granting 6 Stipulation to Extend Deadline. Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. and Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp. shall have to and including 3/18/2014 by which to file and serve their responses to Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/11/2014.
8
03/13/2014
NOTICE re: Consent of Removal by Quality Loan Service Corporation.
9
03/13/2014
Corporate Disclosure Statement by Quality Loan Service Corporation.
10
03/17/2014
STIPULATION re Amending Complaint and Time to Respond by Gregory S Hancock.
1
Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order re Amending Complaint and Time to Respond
1 Attachment
11
03/17/2014
ORDER, granting the Parties' Stipulation re Amending the Complaint and Time to Respond 10 ; Plaintiff shall have to and including 3/28/14 to file an amended complaint; Defendants shall have until 4/11/14 to answer and/or file a responsive pleading. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/17/14.
12
03/28/2014
AMENDED COMPLAINT against CitiMortgage Incorporated, Quality Loan Service Corporation filed by Gregory S Hancock.
1
Exhibit
2
Exhibit
2 Attachments
13
03/28/2014
NOTICE of Filing Amended Pleading pursuant to LRCiv 15.1(b) by Gregory S Hancock.
1
Exhibit
1 Attachment
14
04/11/2014
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER COMPLAINT (First Amended).
15
04/11/2014
MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : I, II, VII, IX, and XII Citimortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
16
04/14/2014
ORDER, granting the 14 Stipulation For Extension of Time To Answer Complaint : Quality Loan Service Corporation answer due 4/14/2014. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/14/14.
17
04/14/2014
ANSWER to 12 Amended Complaint by Quality Loan Service Corporation.
18
04/28/2014
RESPONSE in Opposition re: 15 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : I, II, VII, IX, and XII Citimortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss filed by Gregory S Hancock.
19
04/28/2014
PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND for Jury Trial by Gregory S Hancock.
20
05/07/2014
REPLY to Response to Motion re: 15 MOTION to Dismiss Counts/Claims : I, II, VII, IX, and XII Citimortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Citimortgage, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
21
05/12/2014
REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Gregory S Hancock.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
22
05/13/2014
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Discovery due by 1/16/2015. Dispositive motions due by 3/27/2015. (See attached order for details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/13/2014.
23
05/15/2014
NOTICE re: Initial Disclosure by Gregory S Hancock.
24
05/16/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
25
05/19/2014
NOTICE re: Initial Disclosure Statement by Quality Loan Service Corporation.
26
05/22/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Quality Loan Service Corporation.
27
05/22/2014
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Gregory S Hancock: Certificate of Service re: Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises, Schedule A, Exhibit 1, Declaration upon Custodian of Records for Equifax, Inc. on 5/19/2014.
28
05/22/2014
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Gregory S Hancock: Certificate of Service re: Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises, Schedule A, Exhibit 1, Declaration upon Custodian of Records for Experian Information Solutions, Inc. on 5/19/2014.
29
05/22/2014
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Gregory S Hancock: Certificate of Service re: Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises, Schedule A, Exhibit 1, Declaration upon Custodian of Records for First American Title Insurance Company on 5/19/2014.
30
05/22/2014
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Gregory S Hancock: Certificate of Service re: Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises, Schedule A, Exhibit 1, Declaration upon Custodian of Records for Grand Canyon Title Agency, Inc. on 5/19/2014.
31
05/22/2014
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Gregory S Hancock: Certificate of Service re: Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises, Schedule A, Exhibit 1, Declaration upon Custodian of Records for Pite Duncan, L.L.P. on 5/19/2014.
32
05/22/2014
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Gregory S Hancock: Certificate of Service re: Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises, Schedule A, Exhibit 1, Declaration upon Custodian of Records for Trans Union, L.L.C. on 5/19/2014.
33
06/20/2014
MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Lisa A Lee on behalf of CitiMortgage Incorporated.
06/20/2014
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $35, receipt number PHX147397 as to Lisa A Lee. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Text entry; no document attached.)
34
06/20/2014
ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 33 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (REK) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)
35
06/26/2014
*NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal re: Sara V. Ransom by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025113089860" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025113089860','846624','108','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Text of Proposed Order) *Modified from Motion on 6/27/2014*
1 Attachment
36
07/01/2014
Minute Order: NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT. This matter is reassigned to Judge John J Tuchi for all further proceedings. All documents filed in this action should bear the initials JJT as part of the complete case number (see revised case number above). All pending deadlines and hearings are AFFIRMED unless reset by separate order. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry.
37
07/02/2014
SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Gregory S Hancock: Affidavit of Process re: Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (for testimony and production of documents), Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of and Exhibits to Subpoena upon First American Title Insurance Company on 06/27/2014.
38
07/03/2014
NOTICE re: Service of First Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Gregory S Hancock.
39
07/08/2014
NOTICE re: of Service of subpoenas on non-party witnesses (Equifax, Experian, Grand Canyon Title Agency, First American Title Ins. Co., Pite Duncan, Trans Union) by Gregory S Hancock.
40
07/10/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
41
07/11/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Gregory S Hancock.
42
07/11/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Gregory S Hancock.
43
07/18/2014
NOTICE re: Service of Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Gregory S Hancock.
44
08/01/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Quality Loan Service Corporation.
45
08/07/2014
Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Gregory S Hancock.
1
Text of Proposed Order Proposed Stipulated Protective Order
1 Attachment
46
08/08/2014
*MOTION Entry of Amended Case Management Order re: 22 Scheduling Order (Notice of Motion and Unopposed Motion) by Gregory S Hancock.
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025113260429" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025113260429','846624','134','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Amended Case Management Order) *Modified to correct motion type on 8/11/2014
1 Attachment
47
08/14/2014
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED granting, in part, Motion and Unopposed Motion for Entry of Amended Case Management Order 46. The deadline for joining parties, amending pleadings and filing supplemental pleadings is [extended to] October 9, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other portions of the Case Management Order 22 remain in effect. (See attached Order for details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 8/14/14.(JAMA)
48
08/15/2014
NOTICE re: Service of Third Supplemental Disclosure Statement by Gregory S Hancock.
49
09/05/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
50
09/22/2014
ORDER granting 45 Motion for Protective Order re confidential information. See PDF document for details. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 9/19/14.
51
10/09/2014
MOTION to Amend/Correct to File Second Amended Complaint by Gregory S Hancock.
1
Text of Proposed Order Permitting Filing of Second Amended Complaint
2
Exhibit A - Proposed Second Amended Complaint
3
Exhibit B - Redline Version - Amended Complaint
4
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025113502806" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025113502806','846624','147','','2','1','',''}};">4</a> Exhibits to Proposed Second Amended Complaint) Modified on 10/10/2014
4 Attachments
52
10/15/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Gregory S Hancock.
53
10/22/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Gregory S Hancock.
54
10/29/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Gregory S Hancock.
55
10/29/2014
MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Joseph M Snapper on behalf of CitiMortgage Incorporated.
56
10/29/2014
MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Debra L Bogo-Ernst on behalf of CitiMortgage Incorporated.
10/29/2014
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 70, receipt number PHX151804 as to Joseph M Snapper, Debra L Bogo-Ernst. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Text entry; no document attached.)
57
10/29/2014
ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 55 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 56 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)
58
11/05/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Gregory S Hancock.
59
11/21/2014
*First MOTION Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Engaging in Good Faith Settlement Talks by 10 Business Days Due to January 6, 2015 Scheduled Mediation and Request to Adjust Other Scheduling Deadlines by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
1
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025113670674" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025113670674','846624','168','','2','1','',''}};">1</a> Text of Proposed Order) *Modified to correct motion type on 11/24/2014
1 Attachment
60
11/26/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
61
11/26/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
62
12/09/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Gregory S Hancock.
63
12/17/2014
ORDER, denying Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Gregory S Hancock's First Amended Complaint 15 ; granting Plaintiff Gregory S Hancock's Motion for Leave to File Proposed Second Amended Complaint 51 ; Plaintiff shall file the Second Amended Complaint on the docket within two days of entry of this Order; Defendants shall answer the Second Amended Complaint within 14 days of the date on which the Second Amended Complaint is filed. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 12/17/14.
64
12/17/2014
ORDER, granting the Parties' 59 Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines. Discovery due by 5/18/2015. Dispositive motions due by 7/27/2015. (see order for complete details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 12/17/14.
65
12/17/2014
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) against All Defendants filed by Gregory S Hancock.
1
Exhibit A
2
Exhibit B
3
Exhibit C
4
Exhibit D
5
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025113761946" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025113761946','846624','181','','2','1','',''}};">5</a> Exhibit E) Modified on 12/18/2014
5 Attachments
66
12/17/2014
AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) (Corrected) against All Defendants filed by Gregory S Hancock.
1
Exhibit A
2
Exhibit B
3
Exhibit C
4
Exhibit D
5
https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/doc1/025113762760" onClick="goDLS{{'/doc1/025113762760','846624','183','','2','1','',''}};">5</a> Exhibit E) Modified on 12/18/2014
5 Attachments
67
12/18/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by Gregory S Hancock.
68
12/22/2014
NOTICE of Service of Discovery filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated.
69
12/31/2014
ANSWER to 66 Amended Complaint by Quality Loan Service Corporation.
70
12/31/2014
ANSWER to 66 Amended Complaint (Answer to the Second Amended Complaint) by CitiMortgage Incorporated.(Bogo-Ernst, Debra)
71
02/03/2015
*STIPULATION of Dismissal by Quality Loan Service Corporation. *Modified on 2/4/2015; document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)*
72
02/05/2015
ORDER, pursuant to Parties' 71 Stipulation of Dismissal, this matter is hereby dismissed against Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation with prejudice, the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 2/5/15.
73
02/12/2015
STIPULATION of Dismissal of CitiMortgage, Inc. by Gregory S Hancock.
74
02/17/2015
ORDER pursuant to the parties' 73 Stipulation. ORDERED the above-entitled case against Defendant CitiMortgage Inc. is hereby dismissed with prejudice, the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 2/17/2015. (LFIG)
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.