[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

The Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure State a Claim upon Which Relief May be Granted ("Motion") filed by defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC, incorrectly sued herein as Nationstar Mortgage ("Nationstar"), came on regularly for hearing on December 3, 2014, in Courtroom 3 of the above-captioned Court, the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, presiding. Harold R. Jones appeared on behalf of Nationstar. Plaintiff Catherine Kwon ("Plaintiff") did not appear or file an Opposition to Nationstar's Motion. After full consideration of the pleadings, and oral argument, the Court rules as follows:

The Court grants Nationstar's Motion in its entirety. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Rule 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when there are sufficient factual allegations to draw a reasonable inference that defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. While a court "must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true," it is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

The Complaint's first cause of action for violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et. seq.; second cause of action for breach of contract; third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty; fourth cause of action for common law fraud—inducement; fifth cause of action for common law fraud—concealment; sixth cause of action for constructive fraud; seventh cause of action for conspiracy; and eighth cause of action each arise from the origination of Plaintiff's mortgage loan. Nationstar did not participate in the origination of the loan. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth causes of action with prejudice.

The Complaint's ninth cause of action for slander of title, and tenth cause of action for cancellation of instruments, each fail to allege sufficient factual matter, which if accepted as true, state a claim for relief against Nationstar that is plausible on its face. Plaintiff has failed to identify any fact(s) that would cure the deficiencies in these causes of action. Accordingly, the Court concludes granting leave to amend the ninth and tenth causes of action would be futile. Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 901 (9th Cir. 2011)( holding where a "complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, leave to amend may be denied, even if prior to a responsive pleading, if amendment of the complaint would be futile."). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Complaint's ninth and tenth causes of action with prejudice.

The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to Nationstar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.