Bonjorni v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 2:11-cv-01841

Plaintiffs obtained an $892,000 mortgage from Wells Fargo in June 2007 with an initial 6% interest rate and 10 years of interest-only payments, after which payments would be fully amortized.
The loan documents were signed after plaintiffs were told they did not qualify for a 30-year fixed-rate loan and were informed that the rate could decrease if the US Treasury rate fell, upon paying $2,000.
The loan application and deed of trust were dated June 15, 2007; application data showed higher income and real estate value than supported by plaintiffs’ tax returns, which Wells Fargo knew of.
Plaintiffs allege a typical closing process with inadequate review time and reliance on Wells Fargo’s assurances, and claim the loan documents were incomprehensible and misrepresentative.
The court reviewed the complaint and supporting materials on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to determine if plaintiffs plausibly stated claims for relief.
The court ultimately granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the claimed causes of action failed as a matter of law or were time-barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract and implied covenant viability	Bonjorni asserts implied covenant breach due to misrepresentations and poor loan terms.	No breach identified in the note or deed; implied covenant cannot create new duties during contract formation.	Breach claim fails as a matter of law.
Fraud/misrepresentation timeliness	Misrepresentations occurred in 2007; plaintiff relied on them to obtain the loan.	Fraud claims are time-barred; statute of limitations ran by 2007 and suit filed in 2011.	Fraud/misrepresentation claims are time-barred.
Unconscionability	Promissory note unconscionable due to procedural unfairness and misrepresentations.	Document appears procedurally and substantively standard; no meaningful lack of opportunity to review.	Unconscionability claim fails; no meaningful inability to review terms.
Washington CPA claim viability	Wells Fargo engaged in unfair/deceptive practices affecting public interest.	Conduct targeted at plaintiffs; no public-interest impact shown; claim time-barred.	CPA claim time-barred and fails to show public-interest impact.
Predatory lending and privacy violations	Lending practices were predatory and deceptive.	Plaintiffs abandoned predatory lending theory; no separate statutory claim asserted.	Predatory lending claim dismissed as abandoned.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show more than bare allegations)
In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 1996) (plausibility standard in pleading)
LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2000) (pleading standard and judicial notice framework)
Campanelli v. Bockrath, 100 F.3d 1476 (9th Cir. 1996) (standard for evaluating complaint sufficiency)
United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) (documents referenced in complaint may be considered)
Badgett v. Sec. State Bank, 116 Wn.2d 563 (1991) (implied covenant limits to contract performance)
Zuver v. Airtouch Comm’ns, Inc., 153 Wn.2d 293 (2004) (procedural unconscionability analysis factors)
Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778 (1986) (elements and public-interest considerations for CPA claims)
Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wn.2d 331 (2004) (contract unconscionability framework in Washington)