Skip to Content

Sunday, September 19th, 2021


by April 17, 2021 BUSINESS SHOPPING

In plaintiffs’ action arising out of the non-judicial foreclosure of their property, plaintiffs’ claims that were based on an attempt to enforce the provisions of the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) were dismissed because there was no private right of action under HAMP. Plaintiffs adequately stated a breach of contract claim against defendant bank because plaintiffs sufficiently alleged consideration, and the offer and acceptance language in the permanent loan modification agreement was straightforward, and at minimum, created an ambiguity that had to be resolved in favor of plaintiffs.


Defendants’ motions to dismiss granted in part and denied in part. An EEOC attorney represented respondent.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff sued one defendant, alleging claims for (1) open book account, (2) account stated, (3) quantum meruit, (4) breach of oral contract, (5) defamation, and (6) interference with prospective economic advantage. Against all defendants, he alleged claims for, inter alia, wrongful termination. Plaintiff moved to remand. Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (3), or in the alternative, to transfer venue.


Plaintiff’s motion to remand failed because there was complete diversity of the parties and it appeared that the jurisdictional amount had been met. Next, the court found that there was specific personal jurisdiction over the female defendant with respect to plaintiff’s horse training related claims. There was also specific personal jurisdiction over her in respect to the defamation and interference with prospective advantage claims. Further, the court found specific jurisdiction against both individual defendants as to claims relating to plaintiff’s employment with two companies they owned. As for the two companies, the court found no general jurisdiction. The claims against the companies sounded in contract and tort. Under either the contract test or the tort test, there was specific personal jurisdiction over them. Next, because the action was removed from the Ventura County Superior Court, a place embraced by the Central District of California, venue was proper in the District. Finally, considering all three factors set forth in 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a), the court found and concluded that defendants failed to carry their burden of showing that transfer was warranted.


The court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand. The court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss and to transfer.