Legal Opinion
Lingad v. Indymac Federal Bank
District Court, E.D. California
Decided January 29, 2010No. 2:09-cv-02347PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MORTGAGEIT AND MERS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS *
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR., District Judge.
Defendants MortgagelT, Inc. (“MortgagelT”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) have each filed motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims brought against them in Plaintiffs complaint. (Docket Nos. 7, 15.) MortgagelT also filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike portions of Plaintiffs complaint. (Docket No. 11.) For the reasons stated below, MortgagelT and MERS’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED and…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Lazar v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1994
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries GroupDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2010
- Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A.District Court, N.D. California · 2013
- McNeary-Calloway v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.District Court, N.D. California · 2012
- Ward v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2014
- Griffin v. Green Tree Servicing, LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2015
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.