3:13-cv-03940
N.D. Cal.Mar 3, 2014Background
- Ambers, pro se, sues Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. over foreclosure on Brent Ambers’s 2006 mortgage in Oakland; case removed from Alameda County, with Wells Fargo moving to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
- Court considers Wells Fargo’s request for judicial notice of documents (Exhibits A–Q) and takes judicial notice of public records to establish foreclosure chronology.
- Plaintiff alleges mortgage originated with World Savings/ predecessor; foreclosure proceeded despite bankruptcy filings by Brent and subsequent transfers and trustee substitutions.
- Court questions standing: deed of trust named Brent Ambers as borrower; plaintiff does not show she was a party or intended beneficiary with standing to assert the claims.
- Court analyzes preemption under HOLA; discusses which state-law claims may be preempted and which may not, in light of Wells Fargo’s status and loan history.
- Court grants Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, addressing multiple claims on standing, preemption, and substantive sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue as a non-borrower | Ambers asserts claims based on loan/projected damages | Ambers lacks standing as she is not the borrower | Ambers lacks standing; dismissal with leave to amend |
| Fraudulent inducement to breach contract—pleading | Wells Fargo induced breach via loan modification misrepresentations | Claim not pleaded with specificity and time-barred | Time-barred and not pleaded with particularity; dismissal with leave to amend |
| TILA claims—timeliness and damages | Disclosures and rescission issues raise TILA claims | Claims time-barred; equitable tolling insufficient; rescission barred | Damages claims time-barred with leave to amend; rescission barred; tolling not established |
| ECOA/RESPA and other state-law claims—preemption and sufficiency | Alleges violations under RESPA/ECOA and state law | Claims preempted or inadequately pled; some not preempted but insufficient | RESPA/ECOA claims dismissed or left for amendment; preemption analyzed with others; non-preempted claims not adequately pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of Am. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 309 F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 2002) (extensive federal lending regulation framework and preemption)
- Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp., 514 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2008) (HOLA preemption and field regulation principles)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (fraud pleading standards under Rule 9(b))
- Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1980) (addressing discovery-like elements in fraud claims)
- Bea ch v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998) (TILA rescission and timing limits; three-year repose)
- DeLeon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 311376 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2011) (non-preempted general duties; reliance on 2923.5)
- Hag gu e v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 3360026 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011) (standing and foreclosure-related defenses)
- Lukovsky v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (equitable tolling and fraud claims)