Hua v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-WMC1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-WMC1, 4:14-cv-02427

Edward Hua purchased residential property in Houston and executed a Deed of Trust in 2005; parties agree Wells Fargo (as Trustee for the Morgan Stanley trust) is now the mortgagee.
Hua alleges he entered loan-modification negotiations with Ocwen (Wells Fargo's servicer), submitted requested documents, and was told not to make mortgage payments while modification was pending.
Hua alleges Ocwen promised a modification in writing but no written agreement was ever produced. While awaiting modification, Wells Fargo initiated foreclosure and sold the property to itself in a foreclosure sale on August 7, 2012.
Hua sued in Texas state court (removed to federal court) asserting breach of contract (oral agreement to delay foreclosure), common-law fraud (misrepresentations that foreclosure would be delayed), and promissory estoppel (reliance on promises).
Wells Fargo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Hua did not respond, and the motion was treated as unopposed. The court reviewed plausibility and statute-of-frauds/economic-loss issues.
The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract: enforceability of alleged oral promise to delay foreclosure	Hua contends Wells Fargo (through servicer) orally promised not to foreclose while modification was pursued	Such an oral agreement to delay foreclosure is barred by Texas statute of frauds unless in writing	Dismissed — statute of frauds bars the oral contract claim
Common-law fraud: misrepresentation that foreclosure would be delayed	Hua alleges false, material promises that foreclosure would be stayed while modification was considered	Fraud claim arises from same unenforceable oral agreement and is barred by statute of frauds; also precluded by economic-loss rule	Dismissed — barred by statute of frauds and economic-loss rule
Promissory estoppel: enforceability of promises where no written contract exists	Hua claims he reasonably relied to his detriment on promises to delay foreclosure	Promissory estoppel is not available where there exists a valid, enforceable contract (and plaintiff does not dispute the mortgage's validity)	Dismissed — promissory estoppel unavailable given existing enforceable deed/mortgage
Procedural: effect of plaintiff's failure to respond to motion to dismiss	Hua offered no opposition to the motion	Local Rule 7.4 treats unopposed motions accordingly; court still assesses legal sufficiency	Motion deemed unopposed; court granted dismissal on substantive grounds

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) (standards on evaluating complaints pre-discovery)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (abrogation context for certain procedural principles)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible to survive dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facial plausibility standard for pleadings)
Lowrey v. Texas A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1997) (construing complaints favorably and accepting well-pleaded facts)
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991) (economic-loss rule bars tort recovery for purely contractual economic losses)
Mem’l Hermann Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Eurocopter Deutschland GMBH, 524 F.3d 676 (5th Cir. 2008) (application of Texas economic-loss rule in federal court)