Court: District Court, District of Columbia; May 27, 2015; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs Osama A. Alkasabi and Nadia Haddada, representing themselves, filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") regarding their purchase of a condominium in La Jolla, California. They claim misrepresentations were made concerning the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy prior to the closing of their loan. Chase moved to dismiss the case, arguing the complaint failed to state a valid claim. The court granted this motion, dismissing all claims against Chase with prejudice.
The complaint arose from plaintiffs’ purchase of two condominiums at the Seahaus development, with the suit initiated on December 14, 2012, years after the purchases. Plaintiffs alleged they lacked "marketable title" due to the absence of a Certificate of Occupancy from the City of San Diego and asserted claims of negligent misrepresentation and declaratory judgment against both Chase and the FDIC, as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU). The court previously dismissed claims against the FDIC due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and because they were time-barred under the District of Columbia's three-year statute of limitations.
Plaintiffs sought to hold Chase accountable for WAMU's actions as its successor and for its own post-purchase misrepresentations from September 25, 2008, onwards. WAMU was declared insolvent on September 25, 2008, and the FDIC was appointed as the receiver. Chase acquired certain WAMU assets through a Purchase and Assumption Agreement, which specified that Chase did not assume liabilities related to claims for monetary relief connected to loans made by WAMU prior to its receivership. The specific condominium in question was purchased on June 1, 2005.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the dismissal of a complaint that does not state a plausible claim for relief. Courts evaluate pro se complaints with a liberal construction, accepting the factual allegations as true while disregarding legal conclusions presented as factual assertions. A complaint must contain sufficient factual content, enabling a reasonable inference of the defendant's liability. Courts may consider the complaint's allegations, attached documents, and judicially noticeable matters.
In this case, the defendant contends that claims related to Washington Mutual Bank's (WAMU) conduct should be dismissed with prejudice, as Chase did not assume WAMU's borrower-related liabilities per the Purchase and Assumption Agreement (P.A. Agreement). Article 2.5 of the P.A. Agreement explicitly states that Chase is not liable for any borrower claims related to loans made by WAMU. This provision has been upheld by several courts, which have dismissed claims against Chase stemming from WAMU's actions, confirming that such claims are barred under the agreement.
Plaintiffs have brought claims against Chase based on actions by Washington Mutual (WAMU) that occurred prior to the June 2005 closing of a mortgage loan for the H301 Unit. These claims must be dismissed because the P.A. Agreement stipulates that Chase did not assume liability for borrower claims related to WAMU’s conduct. Moreover, allegations of Chase's own negligent misrepresentations lack necessary factual detail, failing to specify the content of the alleged misrepresentations or the damages incurred by the plaintiffs as a result. The court grants Chase’s Motion to Dismiss due to these deficiencies.
Previously, plaintiffs had named WAMU and the FDIC as defendants but dismissed all except Chase in March 2014. Amendments to the complaint filed in January and February 2015 did not resolve the original complaint's shortcomings. The court denied the motion to amend, citing the lack of reasonable excuse for the delay.
Additionally, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Chase related to another property (5460 La Jolla Blvd. Unit G301) under a confidentiality settlement, leaving only the H301 property claims active. The court had previously directed plaintiffs to demonstrate why the case against Chase should not be dismissed for service issues, but Chase waived service, allowing the case to proceed. The P.A. Agreement was considered in the ruling without converting the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion, as it was referenced in the complaint.
