Dennly Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Inc.
672 F. App'x 660
9th Cir.
2016

Background

  • Plaintiff Dennly Becker, a real estate investor, sued Wells Fargo over conduct related to multiple mortgage/foreclosure matters; actions consolidated on appeal.
  • District court granted summary judgment or dismissed Becker’s claims including fraud, negligence, California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200), elder abuse, RESPA, unfair debt collection, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and quiet title.
  • Becker sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint adding unlawful foreclosure (arguing HOLA preempts California nonjudicial foreclosure), improper foreclosure process, negligence, RICO, and Fifth Amendment takings claims; the district court limited amendment.
  • District court denied recusal/disqualification of the magistrate and declined to delay summary judgment to consider Becker’s late motion to amend.
  • District court awarded attorneys’ fees to Wells Fargo; Becker appealed multiple adverse rulings.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Summary judgment on fraud, negligence, and §17200 Becker contends Wells Fargo committed fraud/negligence causing damages related to several properties Wells Fargo argues Becker failed to show material factual disputes, duty, or damages Affirmed: no genuine dispute on damages or duty; §17200 fails because underlying claims fail
Leave to amend to assert unlawful foreclosure (HOLA preemption) and related claims Becker argues HOLA preempts California nonjudicial foreclosure law, making foreclosures unlawful Wells Fargo and district court assert HOLA does not preempt California’s nonjudicial foreclosure scheme; prior dismissals and futility bars amendment Affirmed: HOLA does not preempt nonjudicial foreclosures; amendment denied as futile or duplicative
Repleaded foreclosure-process and RICO claims previously dismissed with prejudice Becker sought slight rewording of claims previously dismissed with prejudice Wells Fargo contends claims are barred by prior dismissal Affirmed: amendment denied for claims previously dismissed with prejudice
Fifth Amendment takings claim against federal judge(s) Becker alleges deprivation of property in violation of Fifth Amendment Wells Fargo (and law) note absolute judicial immunity for judges performing judicial acts Affirmed: claim barred by absolute judicial immunity
Dismissal of other state claims (fraud on specific properties, elder abuse, RESPA, unfair debt collection, IIED, quiet title) Becker alleges various misrepresentations, elder abuse from foreclosure, RESPA violations, consumer-debt collection violations, outrageous conduct, and entitlement to quiet title Wells Fargo argues pleading failures: no particularized fraud, no tort duty for lender foreclosure conduct, no pecuniary RESPA damages, not consumer debt, rescission moots improper foreclosure, no tender for quiet title Affirmed: claims dismissed for failure to plead required elements or because remedies mooted/untendered
Magistrate disqualification and procedural delay Becker claims magistrate bias and that summary judgment ruling should be delayed to consider his amendment motion Wells Fargo and district court argue no extrajudicial bias; courts have broad discretion on amendment timing Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; no demonstrated bias; denial of delay proper
Attorneys’ fees award to Wells Fargo Becker argues HOLA application meant no contractual fee basis and that he was prevailing party Wells Fargo shows notes/deeds authorized fees and it prevailed; amount and calculation unchallenged Affirmed: fees authorized, Wells Fargo prevailing party, fees reasonable

Key Cases Cited

  • Rossberg v. Bank of Am., N.A., 219 Cal. App. 4th 1481 (discussing damages requirement for fraud in mortgage context)
  • Compton v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 761 F.3d 1046 (no duty from routine lender conduct)
  • Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 231 Cal. App. 3d 1089 (standards for lender negligence duties)
  • Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court, 826 P.2d 730 (Cal. 1992) (relation of underlying claims to §17200)
  • Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp., 514 F.3d 1001 (HOLA does not preempt state nonjudicial foreclosure statutes)
  • Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (absolute judicial immunity)
  • Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992 (district court discretion to deny leave to amend)
  • M/V Am. Queen v. San Diego Mar. Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483 (undue delay as basis to deny amendment)
  • Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP, 202 Cal. App. 4th 522 (foreclosure conduct not tortious elder abuse)
  • Lona v. Citibank, N.A., 202 Cal. App. 4th 89 (rescission can moot improper foreclosure claim)
  • Shimpones v. Stickney, 28 P.2d 673 (quiet title requires tender)
  • Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (standards for judicial bias/disqualification)
  • Saint John's Organic Farm v. Gem Cty. Mosquito Abatement Dist., 574 F.3d 1054 (standard of review for attorney-fees award)
  • Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (attorney-fee principles)
  • Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135 (appellate practice allows affirmance on alternative grounds)
Read the full case