Post on 06-Apr-2018
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 1/19
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BILLI VOGAN and HAROLD TRAUPEL,i nd iv idua l s ,
12
P l a i n t i f f s ,13
v.14
15 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; US BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE16 FOR WFMBS 2005-AR12; WELLS FARGO
HOME MORTGAGE; and FIRST
17 AMERICAN TRUSTEE SERVICINGSOLUTIONS FORMERLY KNOWN AS
18 FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR TRUSTEESERVICES, LLC; and Does 1-100,
19 i nc lus ive ,
Defendants .20
Case No. 2:11-CV-02098-JAM-KJN
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINTPURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 12 (B) (6 ) .
21 This mat t e r i s befo re th e Cour t on Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
22 ("Wells Fargo") and U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trus tee fo r WFMBS 2005-
23 AR12's ("U.S. Bank") Motion to Dismiss P l a i n t i f f s ' Complaint
24 pursuan t to Federa l Rule of Civ i l Procedure 12 (B) (6 ) ("MTD") (Doc.
25 #10) . The motion i s jo ined by Defendant F i r s t American Trus tee
2 6 Serv ic ing Solu t ions ( "F i r s t American") (Doc. #12) (Wells Fargo and
27 U.S. Bank a re co l l e c t i v e ly r e fe r red to as "Defendan ts" ) .
28 Defendants a lso submi t t ed a Reques t fo r Jud i c i a l Notice (Doc .# l l ) .
1
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 2/19
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 2 of 17
1 Pl a i n t i f f s B i l l i Vogan and Harold Traupel (co l lec t ive ly
2 "Pla in t i f f s " ) oppose the motion ("Opposit ion"} (Doc. #16).
3
4 1. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5 This act ion i s predicated on the non-judic ia l forec losure of
6 Pla in t i f f s ' home, located a t 20066 Wildwood West Drive, Penn
7 Valley, Cal i forn ia ("the Proper ty") , by Defendants . Wells Fargo as
8 the successor to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage was the or ig ina l lender
9 and was se rv ice r fo r the loan a t a l l re levant t imes . The loan
10 or ig inated on June 29; 2004. MTD, a t 1. Pla in t i f f s were current
11 on t he i r payments up un t i l a t l ea s t August 2010. Pla in t i f f s
12 stopped paying t he i r mortgage sometime a f t e r tha t , and Fi r s t
13 American, act ing on Wells Fargo's behal f , recorded a not ice of
14 defaul t on the proper ty on December 14, 2010. MTD, a t 1. Wells
15 Fargo did not subs t i tu te F i rs t American as t rus tee un t i l January 4,
16 2011, which was a f t e r Fi r s t American f i l ed the Notice of Default
17 agains t the proper ty . MTD, a t 1.
18 Prior to defaul t ing on t he i r loan, Pla in t i f f s al lege t ha t they
19 attempted to con tac t Wells Fargo to obta in a modif ica t ion in August
20 2010. Compl., a t 16. Fi r s t , Wells Fargo a l leged ly to ld Pla in t i f f s
21 tha t they qua l i f i ed fo r a modif ica t ion, so long as they were in
22 defaul t fo r a t l ea s t three months. Id . I t was only a f t e r they
23 defaul ted in order to qual i fy t ha t Wells Fargo al legedly informed
24 them t ha t t h e i r loan was owned by an inves tor t ha t did not engage
25 in mortgage modif ica t ion . Id . Pla in t i f f s then asked Wells Fargo
26 to ver i fy the note associa ted with t h e i r mortgage, and the
27 documentation produced by Wells Fargo ind ica ted t ha t Wells Fargo
28 still owned the loan. CompI., Ex. B.
2
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 3/19
Case 2: 11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 3 of 17
1 The pa r t i e s dispute what occurred as fa r as ownership of the
2 loan . Pl a i n t i f f s claim t ha t the loan was sold to someone who i s
3 not yet i de n t i f i e d a t an unknown t ime. Opp., a t 2-3. Defendants
4 claimt ha t
the loanwas
soldto
u.s.Bank
ast r u s t e e o f
a mortgage
5 backed secur i ty ("MBS") named WFMBS 2005-AR12 on January 11, 2011.
6 MTD, a t 1-2. Pl a i n t i f f s respond with the a l l ega t ion t ha t WFMBS
7 2005-AR12 has a clos ing date of June 16, 2005, which according to
8 the Pooled Secur i ty Agreement ("PSA") governing adminis t ra t ion of
9 the secur i ty i s the cut -of f date fo r adding addi t ional proper ty to
10 the WFMBS 2005-AR12 t r u s t . Opp., a t 2-3. Pla in t i f f s also a l lege
11 t ha t the of f i ce r who executed the assignment to u.s. Bank on beha l f
12 of Wells Fargo was ac tua l ly a Fi r s t American employee. Compl., a t
13 11. Pla in t i f f s fu r the r a l lege , r e ly ing on the c los ing date for the
14 MBS, t ha t the loan was never ac tua l ly sold to u.s. Bank as t rus tee
15 fo r WFMBS 2005-AR12, and tha t the assignment of i n t e r e s t recorded
16 on January 11, 2011 was recorded to deceive Pla in t i f f s as to who
17 owned t he i r loan and who was author ized to foreclose . Opp. , a t 3.
18 Pla in t i f f s f i l ed t h i s f edera l complain t a f t e r t h e i r s t a t e
19 cour t complain t was twice dismissed pursuant to Defendants '
20 demurrers. Pla in t i f f s claim t ha t they only discovered t ha t
21 Defendants vio la ted federa l law j u s t p r i o r to f i l ing t h e i r federa l
22 complaint , which i s why they dismissed the s t a t e cour t complaint
23 and r e - f i l ed in the Eas tern Di s t r i c t . Opp., a t 1.
24 P l a i n t i f f s ' Complaint br ings ten causes of act ion aga ins t
25 various defendants : (1) Declaratory r e l i e f as to the r i gh t s and
26 ob l iga t ions of Pla in t i f f s and a l l defendants with regard to the
27 Property and P l a i n t i f f s ' mortgage; (2) Negligence aga ins t a l l
28 defendants ; (3) Quasi-Contrac t aga ins t Wells Fargo and u.s. Bank;
3
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 4/19
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 4 of 17
1 (4) Unfair Competit ion under Cal i fo rn ia Business & Professions Code
2 § 17200 agains t a l l defendants ; (5} vio la t ion of the Truth in
3 Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) agains t U.s. Bank;
4 (6 ) Accounting agains t Wells Fargo and u.s . Bank; (7) Construct ive
5 t r u s t aga ins t Wells Fargo and U.s. Bank; (8) Wrongful foreclosure
6 seeking to se t as ide Trus tee ' s Sale aga ins t a l l defendants ; (9) To
7 void or cancel t r u s t e e ' s deed upon sa le agains t U.s. Bank and Fi r s t
8 American; and (10) Quiet Ti t l e aga ins t U.s. Bank and Wells Fargo.
9 The Court has ju r i sd ic t ion over the TILA claim agains t U.s.
10 Bank pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has j u r i sd i c t i on in
11 i t s disc re t ion over the remaining s t a t e law claims if they are
12 pendent from the federa l TILA claim pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
13 The Court held a hearing on t h i s motion on November 2, 2011.
14 At t ha t hear ing, the Court granted F i r s t American 's motion to
15 dismiss with prejudice .
16
17
18 A. Legal Standard
I I . OPINION
19 A party may move to dismiss an act ion fo r fa i lu re to s t a t e a
20 claim upon which r e l i e f can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
21 Civ i l Procedure 12(b) (6). In consider ing a motion to dismiss, the
22 cour t must accept the a l l ega t ions in the complaint as t rue and draw
23 a l l reasonable inferences in favor of the p la in t i f f . Scheuer v.
24 Rhodes, 416 U.s . 232, 236 (1974), overruled on o ther grounds by
25 Davis v. Scherer , 468 U.s. 183 (1984); Cruz v. Beto, 405 u . s . 319,
26 322 (1972). Asser t ions tha t are mere " lega l conclus ions ," however,
27 are not en t i t l ed to the assumption of t ru th . Ashcroft v. Iqba l ,
28 129 S. c t . 1937, 1950 (2009) (c i t ing Bel l Atl . Corp. v. Twombly,
4
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 5/19
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 5 of 17
1 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To surv ive a motion to dismiss , a
2 p l a i n t i f f needs to plead "enough f ac t s to s t a t e a claim to r e l i e f
3 t h a t i s plaus ib l e on i t s face ." Twombly, 550 U.S. a t 570.
4Dismissal i s appropr i a t e where the p l a i n t i f f fa i l s to s t a t e
acla im
5 s uppor t ab l e ' bya cognizable l e ga l t heo ry . B al i s t r e r i v. Pac i f i ca
6 Police Dep ' t , 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir . 1990) .
7 Upon grant ing a motion to dismiss fo r fa i lu re to s t a t e a
8 cla im, the cour t has d i s c r e t i on to al low leave to amend the
9 complain t pursuant to Federa l Rule o f Civi l Procedure 15(a) .
10 "Dismissa l with pre judice and without leave to amend i s not
11 appropr ia te unless it i s c l ea r . . . t h a t the complaint could not
12 be saved by amendment." Eminence Capi ta l , L.L.C. v. Aspeon, Inc . ,
13 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Ci r . 2003).
14
15
B. Reques t fo r J ud i c i a l Notice
Defendants f i l ed a Request fo r J ud i c i a l Notice . They ask the
16 Court to take j u d i c i a l not ice o f 12 publ i c ly recorded o r f i l ed
17 documents r e la ted to the non- jud ic ia l foreclosure process on
18 P l a i n t i f f ' s proper ty and the r esu l t ing s t a t e cour t lawsui t . RJN,
19 a t 2-3 . Pla in t i f f s oppose the motion only to the ex ten t t h a t it
20 asks the Court to accept the contents of the documents as t rue .
21 Opp. , a t 4.
22 General ly , a cour t may not cons ider mater ia l beyond the
23 pleadings i n ru l ing on a motion to dismiss for f a i lu re to s t a t e a
24 cla im. The except ions are mate r ia l a t tached to , o r r e l i ed on by,
25 the complain t so long as au then t ic i ty i s not disputed , or m at ters
26 of publ ic record , provided t ha t they are not subjec t to reasonable
27 dispute . E .g . , Sherman v. Stryker Corp. , 2009 WL 2241664 a t *2
28
5
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 6/19
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 6 of 17
1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) (c i t ing Lee v. Ci ty o f Los Angeles, 25()
2 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir . 2001) and Fed. R. Evid. 201).
3 In t h i s case , the i tems provided by Defendants are the proper
4 sub jec t o f j ud i c i a l no t ice so long as they are not reasonably
5 sub jec t t o d i spu te . Based on the above di scuss ion , the con ten t s o f
6 two o f the exh ib i t s are in di spu te : (1) Subs t i tu t ion of Trustee
7 dated January 4, 2011 (RJN Ex. C), and (2) Assignment o f Deed of
8 T ru s t dated January 6, 2011 (RJN Ex. D). It i s appropr i a t e to take
9 Jud ic ia l Notice of the o the r exh ib i t s , and Defendants ' reques t is
10 GRANTED with respec t to those exh ib i t s . Due to the reasonable
11 di spu te as to the contents of Exhib i t s C and D, Defendants ' reques t
12 fo r j ud i c i a l no t ice o f those tw o exh ib i t s i s DENIED.
13
14
C. Motion to Dismiss
1 . Th e TILA Claim Agains t U.S. Bank
15 P l a i n t i f f s ' so le f edera l cla im i s aga ins t U.S. Bank fo r
16 a l leged ly v io la t ing a provis ion of TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) . U.S.
17 Bank seeks dismissa l of t h i s claim on th e grounds t ha t as a t rus t ee
18 fo r a mortgage backed secur i ty , TILA does not apply to it.
19 Defendants also seek di smissa l by arguing t h a t P l a i n t i f f s fa i l ed to
20 plead damages a r i s i n g from a v io la t ion o f 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) . For
21 the following reasons , the Court f inds t ha t U.S. Bank as t r u s t e e
22 fo r WFMBS 2005-AR12 may be subjec t to l i a b i l i t y a r i s ing from a
23 v io la t ion of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) and the re fo re Defendants ' motion
24 to dismiss t h i s claim must be denied .
25 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) , t i t l ed " L ia b i l i t y of Ass ignees , " requ i re s
26 t h a t when an en t i t y purchases o r i s ass igned the b e n e f i c i a l
27 i n t e r e s t in a loan on a proper ty , it must no t i fy the borrower in
28 wri t ing within 30 days o f when the loan i s t rans fe r red . 15 U.S.C.
6
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 7/19
Case 2: 11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 7 of 17
1 § 1641(g). Subsection (g) l i s t s the par t i cu l a r informat ion t ha t
2 the ass ignee ' s not ice must conta in. This subsect ion only appl ies
3 to the "new owner or assignee of the debt . 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).
4 15 U.S.C. § 1640 author izes a c i v i l act ion fo r v io la t ions of § 1641
5 fo r (1) actual damages, or (2) s ta tu tory damages tha t may included
6 (a) damages equal to twice the amount of any finance charge or
7 (b ) fo r a c red i t t ransac t ion secured by rea l property an amount not
8 l ess than $400 and not grea te r than $4000. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a) .
9 a) Applicat ion of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) to Trustees
10 U.S. Bank argues t ha t as a genera l ru le , t rus tees are not
11 subjec t to TILA in Cal i forn ia because t rus tees have l imi ted
12 l i a b i l i t y in Ca l i fo rn i a ' s non- jud ic ia l foreclosure process .
13 Pla in t i f f s respond t ha t U.S. Bank cannot both foreclose on t he i r
14 home, thereby claiming a benef i c i a l i n t e r e s t in the note secur ing
15 P la in t i f f s ' loan, and simultaneously claim t ha t it i s not a
16 c re d i to r subject to TILA's provis ions .
17 Under Cal i forn ia law, the t rus tee of a deed of t r u s t has no
18 benef ic ia l i n t e r e s t in the mortgage as soc ia ted with the deed of
19 t r u s t . Heri tage Oaks Par tners v. Fi r s t Am. Ti t l e Ins. Co., 66 Cal .
20 Rptr . 3d 510, 514 (Ct. App. 2007). The t rus tee for a deed of t r u s t
21 has only two du t i es : (1) to foreclose the deed of t r u s t upon
22 defaul t , or (2) when the secured debt i s sa t i s f i ed to convey the
23 deed of t r u s t to the borrower. Id . Due to the l imi ted dut ies and
24 lack of benef ic ia l i n t e r e s t assigned to the t rus tee of a deed of
25 t r u s t , federa l cour ts in Cali forn ia hold t ha t TILA does not apply
26 to the t rus tee of a deed of t r u s t . Guerrero v. Ci t i Res iden t ia l
27 Lending, Inc . , No. CV F 08-1878 LJO GSA, 2009 WL 926973, a t *4
28 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2009) (holding t ha t TILA does not apply to the
7
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 8/19
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 8 of 17
1 t rus tee of a deed of t r u s t and explaining t ha t the l imi ted ro le of
2 such a t rus tee under Cal i forn ia law prec ludes TILA l i ab i l i ty ) .
3 U.S. Bank's argument conf la tes the t rus tee of a deed of t r u s t
4 with other types o f t ru s t ees . To support t he i r pos i t ion , U.S. Bank
5 c i t e s Wilson v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. C 11-03394 CRB, 2011 WL
6 3443635, a t *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011). Wilson does support U.S.
7 Bank's posi t ion but i s without c i t a t ion to any Ninth Circui t
8 author i ty . Id . (c i t ing Hargis v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. C 10-02341
9 CRB, 2011 WL 724390 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011)) . The Hargis case
10 c i t ed by the Wilson cour t involves the t rus tee of a deed of t r u s t ,
11 not a t rad i t iona l t rus tee or as in t h i s case the t rus tee of a
12 mortgage backed secur i ty . Hargis, 2011 WL 724390, a t *2. I t
13 appears tha t the Wilson cour t fa i led to note the dis t inc t ion
14 between a t rus tee of a deed of t r u s t and the t rus tee of a mortgage
15 backed secur i ty , as well as the basis fo r the ru le exempting the
16 t rus tee of a deed of t r u s t from TILA. The t rus tee of a deed of
17 t r u s t i s exempt from TILA because of i t s l imi ted ro le under
18 Cal i forn ia law, bu t there i s no analogous reason to exempt o ther
19 types of t rus tees from TILA's provis ions .
20 The po te n t i a l breadth of U.S. Bank's posi t ion i s eas i ly
21 i l l u s t r a t ed by hypothet ica l ly grant ing l imi ted l i ab i l i t y to a
22 common la w t ru s t ee . Under the common law of t r u s t s , a " t rus tee i s
23 subjec t to persona l l i a b i l i t y to th i rd persons on obl igat ions
24 incurred in the adminis t ra t ion of the t r u s t to the same extent t ha t
25 he would be l i ab le if he held the property free of t r u s t . "
26 Restatement (2d) of Trus ts § 261. This common law ru le shows a
27 s ta rk cont ras t between the du t ies of the t rus tee of a deed of
28 t ru s t , as l imi ted by Cal i forn ia law, and those of a common law
8
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 9/19
Case 2: 11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 9 of 17
1 t r u s t e e . A t r ad i t i ona l t rus t ee holds title to t r u s t proper ty and
2 i s respons ib le for omissions re l a t ed to the adminis t ra t ion of t h a t
3 proper ty . Exempting a l l t rus t ees from TILA would permit t ru s t s
4 ac t ing as l enders to complete ly evade TILA's provis ions .
5 Fur ther , as P l a i n t i f f s poin t out , u.s. Bank was assigned the
6 ownership i n t e r e s t in the loan by the January 11, 2011 assignment ,
7 meaning t ha t u.s. Bank i s Wells Fargo ' s purpor ted ass ignee . MTD,
8 a t 2. As an ass ignee , u.s. Bank f a l l s square ly with in 15 U.S.C. §
9 1641(g), which crea tes l i ab i l i t y for the ass ignees of the loan ' s
10 or ig ina l c red i to r if the assignee f a i l s to no t i fy the borrower of
11 the acqu is i t ion . 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) .
12 The Cour t dec l ines to fol low the Wilson cour t ' s dec is ion with
13 respec t to TILA l i a b i l i t y of t r u s t e e s . The t rus t ee of a deed of
14 t r u s t enjoys l imi ted l i ab i l i t y because it only has tw o du t ies in
15 the Cal i fo rn ia s t a tu to ry forec losure process , but the re i s no l ega l
16 bas i s to suppor t a hold ing t ha t l imi t s th e l i a b i l i t y of a l l
17 t rus t ees in t h i s manner. Accordingly, th e Court f inds t ha t
18 Pl a i n t i f f s have proper ly a l leged t ha t u.s. Bank as t r u s t e e fo r
19 WFMBS 2005-AR12, a mortgage-backed-secur i ty , i s l i a b l e fo r
20 v io l a t i o n s of TILA.
21 b) Damages Pleaded by P l a i n t i f f s
22 U.S. Bank argues t ha t Pl a i n t i f f s must plead ac tua l damages to
23 s t a t e a cla im, and t ha t the ac tua l damages pleaded in the complain t
24 do not meet the appropr ia te pleading s tandard . MTD, a t 2-3.
25 Pl a i n t i f f s respond t h a t a 1641(g) c la imant may recover ac tu a l
26 damages, s t a t u t o ry damages, and a t to rneys ' fees and t ha t they
27 appropr i a t e ly pleaded a l l three types o f damages. Opp., a t 8.
28 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a) author izes cla ims for ac tua l damages,
9
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 10/19
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 10 of 17
1 s ta tu tory damages, and at torneys fees fo r v io la t ions of 15 U.S.C.
2 § 1641(g) . Russel l v. Mortgage Solut ions Mgmt., - I n c . , No. CV 08-
3 1092-PK, 2010 WL 3945117, a t *6-*7 (D. Or. Apr. 6, 2010)
4 (acknowledging a l l three types of damages are author ized by § 1640
5 aga ins t or ig ina l c red i to r ' s ass ignee) .
6 In t h i s case, Pla in t i f f s pleaded t ha t U.S. Bank's vio la t ion of
7 § 1641(g) caused t he i r home to be foreclosed, presumably because
8 they were unable to contact t he i r actual c redi tor to negot ia te a
9 modif ica t ion of t he i r loan as they explained in another par t of
10 t he i r complaint . Compl., a t 28. They also pleaded t ha t they had
11 to h i re an at torney in order to determine who held t he i r loan. Id .
12 Fina l ly , Pla in t i f f s pleaded tha t u .S . Bank i s sub jec t to s ta tu tory
13 damages and fees. Id . The Court notes t ha t desp i te pleading a l l
14 of these damages, Pla in t i f f s have not pleaded a causal connection
15 between the al leged § 1641(g) vio la t ion and t he i r ac tua l damages
16 because the event prec ip i ta t ing the foreclosure was t he i r defaul t ,
17 not a lack of not ice as to who owned the loan. Pla in t i f f s admit
18 t ha t they were unable to make the required payments on the loan
19 without receiv ing a modif ica t ion, and they do not plead t h a t a
20 modif ica t ion i s lega l ly required . Compl., a t 16. Even if
21 p la in t i f f s are not ent i t l ed to ac tua l damages based on the
22 a l lega t ions in t he i r Complaint, they did adequately plead t ha t they
23 are en t i t l ed to a t to rneys ' fees and s ta tu tory damages.
24 Pla in t i f f s pleaded a claim a r i s ing out of u.S. Bank's al leged
25 vio la t ion of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) and damages associa ted with t ha t
26 claim, making dismissal a t t h i s s tage improper. As a r e su l t , U.S.
27 Bank's motion to dismiss th i s claim i s DENIED.
28
10
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 11/19
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 11 of 17
2 . P l a i n t i f f s ' Sta te Law Claims
a) Ju r i sd ic t ion
Defendants argue t h a t th e Court does not have fede ra l ques t ion
j u r i s d i c t i on pursuan t to 28 U.S.C.§
1331 because P l a i n t i f f s '
fede ra l TILA claim i s not a va l id c la im. Pl a i n t i f f s respond t h a t
the Cour t does have j u r i s d i c t i on pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. 1331 over
the fede ra l TILA cla im and j u r i s d i c t i on pursuan t to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367 over the pendant s t a t e law c la ims.
As discussed above, P l a i n t i f f s did plead a va l id fede ra l claim
giving th e Cour t j u r i s d i c t i on over t h a t claim pursuan t to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. Th e Court may, in i t s d i sc re t ion , exe rc i se j u r i s d i c t i on
over pendant s t a t e law cla ims pursuan t to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
The Court f inds t h a t the remaining s t a t e law cla ims are a l l
pendant from t he fede ra l TILA c la im. The s t a t e law cla ims a r i s e
out of th e o r ig in a t i o n , s a l e , d e f au l t , and forec losure of th e note
securing th e loan used to purchase th e Proper ty . Accordingly , th e
Cour t a s se r t s j u r i s d i c t i on over the s t a t e law cla ims and decides
Defendants ' motion to dismiss those cla ims as fo l lows .
b) Negligence Agains t A ll Defendants
Defendants argue t h a t Pl a i n t i f f s fa i l ed to adequately p lead a
negl igence cause of ac t ion . MTD, a t 7-8 . S p ec i f i c a l l y , they claim
t h a t no defendan t owes P l a i n t i f f s a l eg a l duty , which i s th e second
element in a prima f ac ie negl igence case . Id . Addi t iona l ly ,
24 Defendants argue t h a t Cal i fo rn ia does not permi t recovery in
25 negl igence absen t a p h y s i ca l in ju ry to person o r prope r ty . Id . a t
26 8.
27 P l a i n t i f f s do not respond to Defendants ' arguments in t h e i r
28 Opposi t ion . The Cour t i n t e rp re t s P l a i n t i f f s ' fa i lure to respond as
11
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 12/19
Case 2: 11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17111 Page 12 of 17
1 a concession to Defendants ' arguments concerning t h i s cla im.
2 Accordingly , th e Court GRANTS Defendants ' motion to dismiss
3 P l a i n t i f f s ' negligence c la im with pre jud ice .
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c) Viola t ion o f Business and Profess ions Code
§ 17200, e t seq. Against A ll Defendants
Defendants argue t ha t P l a i n t i f f s fa i led to plead t h a t any
conduct i s "unlawful , unfa i r , or f raudulent" as requi red for
v io la t ions of the § 17200 unfa i r compet i t ion law ("DCL"). MTD, a t
8-9. P l a i n t i f f s respond t h a t they adequa te ly pleaded v io la t ions
su f f i c i en t to sa t i s fy each of the th ree va r i e t i e s o f DCL cla ims
with respect to Wells Fargo and D.S. Bank.
"The purpose of the DCL i s to p ro t e c t both consumers and
compet i to r s by promoting f a i r compet i t ion in commercial markets fo r
goods and se rv i c e s . " Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Ass 'n , 106
Cal . Rptr . 3d 46, 49 (Ct. App. 2010) ( in t e rna l c i t a t i ons omit ted) .
"The Cal i fo rn ia Supreme Court held t h a t the DCL es tab l i shes three
var i e t i e s of unfa i r compet i t ion-ac ts or prac t i ces which are
[1 ] unlawful , or [2 ] unfa i r , or [3 ] f r audu len t . " Id . a t 50. Since
the DCL i s wri t t en in the d i s junc t ive , a bus iness ac t o r p ra c t i c e
may be a l leged to be a l l o r any of the three var i e t i e s . Berryman
v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., In c . , 62 Cal. Rptr . 3d 177, 185 (Ct. App.
2007). In order to s t a t e a cla im under the unlawful prong, a
p l a i n t i f f must a l lege fac t s t ha t show t h a t anything t h a t can
reasonably be charac te r ized as a bus iness prac t i ce i s also a
v io la t ion of law. Cal i fo rn ia v. McKale, 25 Cal.3d 626, 632 (1979).
To show a v io la t ion under the f raudulent prong, a p l a i n t i f f must
show t ha t members of the publ ic a re l i ke l y to be deceived by the
prac t ice . Weinsta t v. Dentsply I n t ' l , Inc . , 103 Cal . Rptr . 3d 614,
12
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 13/19
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 13 of 17
1 622 n. 8 (Ct. App. 2010)-. "A p l a i n t i f f ' s burden thus i s to
2 demonstrate t ha t the r ep resen ta t ions or nondisc losures in quest ion
3 would l ike ly be misleading to a reasonable consumer." Id .
4 Final ly , under the u n fa i r prong, three d i f f e r e n t t e s t s are
5 cur ren t ly used by Cal i forn ia cour t s to determine if a pract ice i s
6 unfa i r . Drum, 106 Cal. Rptr . 3d a t 53.
7 In t h i s case, Pla in t i f f s pleaded t ha t U.S. Bank fa i l ed to
8 comply with TILA § 1641(g) , as discussed above. Pleading tha t U.S.
9 Bank vio la ted TILA i s su f f i c i en t to main ta in a UCL claim agains t
10 U.S. Bank under the unlawful aspect of the UCL.
11 Pla in t i f f s also pleaded t ha t Wells Fargo recorded a fabr ica ted
12 assignment o f deed of t r u s t ass igning i n t e r e s t in Pla in t i f f s ' loan
13 to U.S. Bank. Compl., a t 14-16. As discussed above, Pl a i n t i f f s
14 al leged t ha t the recorded assignment was executed well a f t e r the
15 c los ing da te o f the MBS to which it was al legedly so ld , giving r i se
16 to a p laus ib le infe rence t ha t a t l ea s t some p a r t o f the recorded
17 assignment was f ab r ica ted . Pl a i n t i f f s a l l ege t h a t such conduct, if
18 proven, cons t i tu te s a vio la t ion of Cal. Penal Code § 532f(a) (4) .
19 Compl., a t 24. That sec t ion p roh ib i t s any person from f i l ing a
20 document re la ted to a mortgage loan t ransac t ion with the county
21 recorder ' s of f ice tha t i s known to be fa l se , with the in ten t to
22 defraud. Cal. Penal Code § 532f(a) (4) .
23 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank's
24 motion to dismiss t h i s cla im.
25 III
26 III
27 III
28 III
13
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 14/19
1
2
3
4
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJ N Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 14 of 17
d ) The Requirement to Plead Tender with Respect to
the Following Claims: Claim 3) Quasi-Contract ,Claim 7) Cons t ruc t ive Trus t , Claim 8) WrongfulForeclosure and to Set Aside Trus tee ' s Sale ,Claim 9) Voiding th e Trustee ' s Deed, Claim 10)Quiet Ti t l e
5 Defendants argue t ha t any claim re la ted to a foreclosure t ha t
6 a r i ses in equi ty must be accompanied by P l a i n t i f f s ' credib le
7 a l l ega t ion of t ender . MTD, a t 10. Pla in t i f f s respond t ha t they
8 must only a l l ege t ender , which they claim to have done, and t ha t
9 t ender i s not requi red when the va l i d i t y of the underlying debt i s
10 at tacked. Opp. , a t 11.
11 A p l a i n t i f f i s requi red to a l l ege t ender of the f u l l
12 outs tanding loan amount in order to maintain any cause o f act ion
13 for i r r egu l a r i t y in the non- jud ic ia l forec losure sa le procedure.
14 Abdallah v. United Sav. Bank, 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109 (1996).
15 "[T]he t ender ru le i s not absolute , and a t ender may not be
16 requi red where it i s inequi table to do so . " Sacchi v. Mortgage
17 Elec. Regis t r a t ion Sys . , Inc . , No. CV 11-1658 ARM (CWx) , 2011 WL
18 2533029, a t *10 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2011) (c i t ing Onofrio v. Rice ,
19 55 Cal.App.4th 413, 424, 64 Cal .Rpt r .2d 74 (1997)). "Also, if the
20 ac t ion at tacks the val id i ty of the underlying debt , a tender i s not
21 requi red s ince it would cons t i tu t e an aff i rmat ive of the deb t . "
22 Onofrio , 64 Cal. Rptr . 2d 74.
23 Pla in t i f f s do not adequate ly plead fu l l t ender as required to
24 a t t ack an i r r egu la r i t y in the foreclosure process . They only plead
25 t ha t they were wil l ing to make modif ied payments on t h e i r loan .
26 Compl., a t 16.
27 On the o ther hand, Pl a i n t i f f s al lege t ha t Wells Fargo
28 represented i t s e l f as the owner of P l a i n t i f f s ' mortgage, but then
14
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 15/19
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 15 of 17
1 represented t ha t it had a l ready sold the loan to a t h i rd par ty .
2 Compl. , a t 16. Then, Pla in t i f f s al lege , Wells Fargo recorded an
3 assignment of t h e i r loan to an MBS t ha t was prohib i ted from
4 accep t ingit
because i t s clos ing date was over 5 years p r i o r to the
5 assignment. Compl. , a t 17. Further , on May 26, 2011, Pla in t i f f s
6 a l l ege tha t Wells Fargo as the se rv ice r repor ted to Pla in t i f f s t ha t
7 it still owned the loan , even though U.S. Bank was foreclos ing and
8 Wells Fargo previous ly recorded an assignment to U.S. Bank.
9 Compl., Ex. B. Based on these al leged fac t s , Pla in t i f f s claim t ha t
10 U.S. Bank does no t own t he i r loan, desp i te the f a c t t ha t U.S. Bank
11 ac ted as the fo rec los ing benef ic ia ry under the deed of t r u s t .
12 Pla in t i f f s are no t saying t ha t U.S. Bank fa i led to follow the
13 l e t t e r of Ca l i fo rn i a ' s s ta tu tory forec losure law; they are cla iming
14 t ha t U.S. Bank d id not have s tanding to forec lose in the f i r s t
15 p lace . Thus, r e ly ing on Onofrio , requir ing Pla in t i f f s to t ender
16 the fu l l amount o f the indebtedness to an e n t i t y , U.S. Bank, t ha t
17 i s al legedly not the benef ic ia ry to the deed of t r u s t in orde r to
18 pro t e c t Pla in t i f f s ' i n t e r e s t in the Property would be inequi tab le .
19 Defendants U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo ' s only ground fo r seeking
20 dismissal on these causes o f act ion i s the t ender requirement . The
21 Court holds t ha t th e t ender requirement does not apply to t h i s case
22 because Pla in t i f f s are chal lenging the benef ic ia l i n t e r e s t held by
23 U.S. Bank in the deed of t r u s t , not the procedura l su f f i c i ency of
24 the forec losure i t s e l f . For th i s reason, U.S. Bank and Wells
25 Fargo ' s motion to dismiss these claims because Pla in t i f f s fa i led to
26 plead tender i s DENIED.
27 I I I28 I I I
15
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 16/19
1
2
3
Case 2:11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 16 of 17
e) Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss The RemainingCauses of Action: Claim 1) Declaratory Relief
Against A ll Defendants and Claim 6) AccountingAgainst u.s. Bank and Wells Fargo
4 Defendants argue t ha t both remaining causes of ac t ion are
5 dup l ica t ive of the o ther causes of act ion because they are remedial
6 in nature , and are not su f f i c i en t to be s tandalone causes of
7 ac t ion . MTD, a t 12. Pla in t i f f s do not address the accounting
8 cause of ac t ion , but general ly argue t h a t the declara tory r e l i e f
9 claim i s su f f i c i en t because deciding it w i l l c l a r i fy and s e t t l e the
10 dispute and re l i eve uncer ta in ty . Opp., a t 13.
11 (1) Declaratory Rel ie f
12 A claim for declara tory r e l i e f i s dup l ica t ive and unnecessary
13 when it i s commensurate with the r e l i e f sought through other causes
14 of act ion . Mangindin v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 637 F. Supp. 2d 700, 707-
15 708 (N.D. Cal . 2009).
16 In t h i s case , Pla in t i f f s put forward o ther cla ims, t ha t if
17 decided, wil l resolve the remaining controvers ies between the
18 par t i e s and re l i eve any uncer ta in ty r e l a t e d to the Property .
19 Pla in t i f f s only argument in suppor t of the claim fo r dec la ra to ry
20 r e l i e f i s t ha t Defendants claim an i n t e r e s t in the proper ty and
21 wil l s e l l the horne to another par ty . Opp., a t 13. I f the Wrongful
22 Foreclosure and Quiet Ti t l e claims are decided, however,
23 Defendants ' i n t e r e s t in the proper ty w i l l be resolved.
24 For th i s reason, the claim fo r declara tory r e l i e f i s
25 dupl ica t ive of the o ther cla ims asse r t ed , and Defendants ' motion to
26 dismiss it i s GRANTED with pre jud ice .
27 (2) Accounting
28 Defendants seek dismissa l of t h i s cause of act ion on the
16
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 17/19
Case 2: 11-cv-02098-JAM -KJN Document 30 Filed 11/17/11 Page 17 of 17
1 grounds t h a t the claim i s merely remedia l as pleaded and t he re fo re
2 d u p l i c a t i v e of P l a i n t i f f s ' o t h e r c la ims . P l a i n t i f f s do n o t respond
3 to t h i s argument in t h e i r Oppos i t ion . Accordingly , Defendants '
4motion to di smiss t h i s claim i s
GRANTEDwith pre jud ice .
5
6 I I I . ORDER
7 A f t e r ca r e f u l l y consider ing th e papers submi t t ed in t h i s
8 mat t e r and the argument o f counse l a t the hear ing on t h i s motion,
9 it i s hereby ordered t h a t Defendant ' s Motion to Dismiss i s GRANTED
10 i n p a r t , as fo l lows:
11 1 . P l a i n t i f f s ' claim fo r neg l igence aga ins t Defendants i s
12 dismissed with pre jud ice ;
13 2. P l a i n t i f f s ' cla ims fo r dec la ra to ry r e l i e f and an
14 account ing ag a i n s t Defendants are dismissed with pre jud ice ; and
15 3. The Co u r t ' s prev ious Order dismiss ing with p re j u d i c e a l l
16 remaining cla ims aga ins t F i r s t American i s reaf f i rmed .
17 Defendants ' motion to di smiss P l a i n t i f f s ' remaining c la ims i s
18 DENIED. Defendants s h a l l f i l e t h e i r answers to P l a i n t i f f s '
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complain t with in twenty (20) days o f t h i s Order .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2011
17
OHN A. MENDEZ,
UNITED STATES
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 18/19
7
Attorneys for the Appellant, Brian W Davies
1 Gary Harre, ES~ (Bar No. 86938~2 Diane Beall, ES . (Bar No. 86877JohnH.BauerE O. (BarNo. 914 1)
3 1198 Pacific Coastl-l\yy, Suite 362DSeal Beach, CA 90740Phone:( 646)-415-79804Email: nh'-'f",'Cc;r'+((yl0"''' ' ' ',01':j ' ('1''1''',• ~~:-iJL~~·JL\g;;~1_Jt1t;:A~-,1 o~~!!;
5 A1:!0ms~yfor Appellant,6 Bnan W Davies
8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
9 OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
John H. Bauer (Bar No. 91471)
Diane Beall (Bar No. 86877)
Gary Harre (Bar No. 86938)
10
11
12 lnre:BRIAN W DAVIES,
13 Debtor.
14BRIAN W DAVIES
15 Plaintiff and Appellant,vs.
16 DEUTSCHEBANKNATIONALTRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE
17 OF THE RESIDENTIAL ASSET
SECUITIZATION TRUST 2007-A5,18 MORTGAGEPASSTHROUGH
SERIES 2007-E, UNDER THE19 POOLING AND SERVICING
AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 1,20 2007, ITS ASSIGNS AND/OR
SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST; et. a1.;
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants and Appellee.
I I
Chapter 7
Bk Case No. 6:10-bk-37900
Ap Case No. 6:11-ap-OlOOl
Bap Case No. CC-11-1221
APPELLANT'S NOTICE TO COURTOF EASTERN DISTRICT COURT
OF CALIFORNIA ORDER IN CASENO.2:110CV002098
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE]
1
8/3/2019 Vogan v Wells Fargo US Bank as trustee for WSMBS - USDC Eastern District Calif -granting in part/denying in part m…
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vogan-v-wells-fargo-us-bank-as-trustee-for-wsmbs-usdc-eastern-district-calif 19/19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorneys for the Appellee
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY as Trustee of the
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A5, Mortgage Pass Through Series
2007-E, under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated March 1,2007.
Andrew E. Miller (Bar No. 213504)Loraine L Pedowitz (Bar No. 120614)
Sarina Saluja (Bar No. 253781)
515 South Figueroa Street, Ninth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3309
I, George Pursley, declare as follows:
I am a citizen of the United States of America, over the age of 18 years and not a
party to the within action. My business address is 248 Redondo Avenue Long Beach,
California 90803. On this date, I caused to be served the following:
APPELLANT'S NOTICE TO COURT OF EASTERN DISTRICT OFCALIFORNIA CASE NO. 2:11-CV-02098 ORDER FILED NOV. 17,2011
by mailing a true and correct copy of the above-mentioned documents with postage
fully pre-paid, addressed to:
Executed this 8th day of December, 2011, at Long Beach, California 90740.
Dated: December 8, 2011
2