-BLM Rancho Mountain Properties, Inc. v. Gray et al, No. 3:2011cv00358 - Document 12 (S.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Defendants' 4 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/15/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 Proper venue is based on the most "convenient" or "fair" forum. as established by various 2 statutory criteria such as the defendant's residence or where the cause of action arose. See Ne irbo 3 Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 167-68 (1939); see also Sec. Investor Prot. 4 Corp. v. Vigman, 764F.2d 1309, 1313-14 (9thCir. 1985). The general rule is that a plaintiffs 5 forum choice is afforded substantial weight. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 6 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986); Tuazon v. R.J Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1177 (9th 7 Cir. 2006) (asserting "the plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to deference"). The defendant must 8 prove a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting a plaintiff s forum choice. Decker 9 Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. The Court finds Defendants have failed to provide any facts or reasons 10 to show the Southern District of California is an inconvenient or unfair forum. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff submitted to the jurisdiction of the San Benito 11 12 Superior Court when Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants in February 13 2011. (Mot.. ~ 2.) Under California law, "[t]he proper location for trial of [an unlawful detainer] 14 proceeding ... is the location where the court tries that type of proceeding that is the nearest and 15 most accessible to where the real property that is the subject of the action, or some part thereof, is 16 situated." Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 392(b). The Court finds Defendants' argument unpersuasive 17 because under this section, Plaintiff was required to file its claim in the San Benito Superior Court, 18 as the real property subject to the claim was located there. (Mot., Ex. B.) Additionally, an unlawful 19 detainer proceeding is a limited proceeding that cannot be used for any other purpose, including to 20 adjudicate a breach of contract claim. Superior Motels, Inc. v. Rinn Motor Hotels, Inc., 195 Cal. 21 App. 3d 1032, 1070-71 (1987). Accordingly, Plaintiff s initiation of an unlawful detainer 22 proceeding in San Benito Superior Court did not waive Plaintiffs right to bring this action in this 23 Court. 24 Defendants next claim that the Guaranty was cancelled by the United States Bankruptcy 25 Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to a court order in Case Nos. 08-3220, 09 26 30788, and 09-30802. (Mot., ~ 3.) The Court rejects this claim because, as Plaintiff points out, the 27 court order specifically states that the reconveyance of the liens was made "according to the terms 28 of the Memorandum of Understanding." (Opp., p. 9; Mot., Ex. C, p. 2.) Loans 06-057 and 06-058 - 4- ll-cv-0358 : 1 are the only loans cited in the Memorandum of Understanding. (RJN, Ex. E, Recital A, p. 55.) 2 Here, however, the Guaranty is listed as Loan 06-056. (Compl., Ex. C, p. 45.) Therefore, the 3 Guaranty has not been cancelled by court order. 4 Defendants lastly argue that the transactions upon which this lawsuit is based are also being 5 litigated in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 6 08-12840 PBll under Adversary Proceeding No. 11-90064. (Mot., ~ 4.) The Court rejects this 7 argument because Defendants are not named in that action. On April 13, 2011, the Honorable 8 Peter Bowie of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California also 9 dismissed without prejudice the Adversary Proceeding. (Bankr. S.D. Cal. Adv. Proc. 11-90064). 10 Accordingly, Defendants' request to dismiss this action on the grounds ofimproper venue is 11 denied. 12 B. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 13 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for 14 failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A complaint should be dismissed if a 15 plaintiff fails to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. 16 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569 (2007). This plausibility standard means the complaint must 17 state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the 18 claim. Id at 556. The court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint, as well as 19 reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. See Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696,699 (9th Cir. 20 1998). The complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id 21 Defendants fail to cite any case law or other legal authority supporting their argument that a 22 12(b)(6) dismissal is appropriate in this case, nor could the Court find any. Accordingly, 23 Defendants' request to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied. 24 III 25 III 26 III 27 III 28 III. CONCLUSION - 5- 11-cv-0358
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
