Guzzo v. Mason McDuffie Mortgage Co.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LIBBY GUZZO, Case No. 23-cv-05788-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND; DIRECTING 9 v. PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FEDERAL CLAIM AGAINST ADAM 10 MASON MCDUFFIE MORTGAGE CO., ROSEN SHOULD NOT BE et al., DISMISSED; CONTINUING CASE 11 MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Defendants.

12 13 By order filed February 27, 2024, the Court granted plaintiff Libby Guzzo's 14 ("Guzzo") motion for leave to file her proposed First Amended Complaint ("Proposed 15 FAC") and directed her to file the Proposed FAC no later than March 8, 2024. In the 16 same order, the Court deferred ruling on Guzzo's Motion for Order Remanding Removed 17 Action to State Court ("Motion to Remand"), filed January 22, 2024, which motion is 18 based on Guzzo's having removed from the Proposed FAC her cause of action under the 19 Graham-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLBA"), the claim on which federal jurisdiction is based. 20 Guzzo has not, however, filed the Proposed FAC, leaving the initial Complaint as 21 the operative pleading, which remains pending against defendant Adam Rosen 22 ("Rosen"),1 and, as noted, includes a federal claim. 23 Accordingly, the Motion to Remand is hereby DENIED. 24 With regard to the federal claim, however, it would appear that Guzzo has failed to 25

26 1 Of the four defendants named in the Complaint, defendants Newfi Lending and Greenbox Loans, Inc. were voluntarily dismissed by Guzzo on January 18, 2024 (see 27 Doc. Nos. 21, 22), and defendant Mason McDuffie Mortgage Co.'s motion to dismiss was 1 state a claim, that such deficiency cannot be cured, and, consequently, that said claim is 2 || subject to dismissal without leave to amend. See Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 3 || (9th Cir.1981) (observing "trial court may act on its own initiative to note the inadequacy 4 || of acomplaint and dismiss it for failure to state a claim"). 5 In particular, Guzzo alleges Rosen violated the GLBA by "appropriating, 6 mishandling[,] and transmitting personal information" of plaintiff. (See Compl., Doc. 2 at 7 10.)? Although the GLBA provides that "each financial institution has an affirmative and 8 || continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security 9 || and confidentiality of those customers' nonpublic personal information,” see 15 U.S.C. 10 || § 6801(a), number of courts have concluded that no private right of action exists under 11 the GLBA, see, e.g., Dunmire v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 475 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2007) g 12 || (holding "[nJo private right of action exists for an alleged violation of the GLBA"; collecting s 13 cases); Zingale v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 13217478, at *2-*3 (C.D. Cal. 14 || January 3, 2011) (dismissing without leave to amend claim under GLBA; holding "GLBA 2 15 || does not provide a private right of action"). This Court has not located any authority to a 16 || the contrary. g 17 Accordingly, Guzzo is hereby DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, no later 18 than April 12, 2024, and not to exceed five pages in length, why her claim under the 19 || GLBA should not be dismissed without leave to amend. 20 Lastly, in light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby 21 CONTINUED from April 26, 2024, to May 31, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case 22 Management Statement shall be filed no later than May 24, 2024. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: March 29, 2024 tobe □□□□□ INE M. CHESNEY 25 United States District Judge 26 27 > In citing to the Complaint, the Court has used herein the page numbers affixed to 2g || the top of the page by this district's electronic filing program.