Huerta v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, 6:16-cv-02045

Background

In 1998 the Huertas bought two adjacent Salem parcels: a House Parcel and a Bare Parcel; bank financing and a first-position deed of trust originally covered both.
In 2008 the parties agreed the loan would be secured only by the House Parcel; the Bare Parcel became free and clear of the deed of trust.
The Huertas defaulted in 2012; Wells Fargo acquired the loan and filed judicial foreclosure in Marion County, seeking to reform the trust deed to include the Bare Parcel; the Huertas did not appear and default judgment entered in 2013.
In 2015 both parcels were sold at sheriff’s sale; in 2016 the Huertas moved to set aside the default judgment alleging inadequate notice and misconduct; the state court denied the motion.
Instead of appealing, the Huertas filed this federal action asserting (1) unjust enrichment (Wells Fargo received proceeds for the Bare Parcel it never paid for) and (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing related to the foreclosure filings.
Wells Fargo moved to dismiss, arguing claim and issue preclusion and Oregon’s anti‑SLAPP statute; the district court dismissed the good‑faith claim but allowed the unjust enrichment claim to proceed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unjust enrichment is precluded by earlier state foreclosure proceedings	Huerta: unjust enrichment is an equitable claim and was not litigated or required in state court	Wells Fargo: Huerta could have raised it earlier and is barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel	Not precluded — unjust enrichment allowed (different equitable theory; not compulsory counterclaim)
Whether breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is precluded	Huerta: claim arises from Wells Fargo’s foreclosure conduct and can be litigated here	Wells Fargo: claim is a contract claim based on the deed of trust and was or could have been decided in state foreclosure	Precluded — contract claim relating to the deed of trust was necessarily tied to the foreclosure and barred by claim preclusion
Whether Oregon’s anti‑SLAPP statute bars either claim	Huerta: unjust enrichment is not based on statements in the foreclosure filings; good‑faith claim is separate	Wells Fargo: both claims arise from judicial filings and are subject to ORS 31.150 special motion to strike	Anti‑SLAPP inapplicable to unjust enrichment; good‑faith claim likely barred under anti‑SLAPP as it arises from court filings
Whether issue preclusion bars unjust enrichment	Huerta: issue was not litigated or essential to prior judgment	Wells Fargo: prior proceeding resolved related facts	Not barred — unjust enrichment issue was not identical or essential to the prior foreclosure judgment

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions need not be accepted as true on a motion to dismiss)
Readylink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 760 (federal courts apply state preclusion law)
Rennie v. Freeway Transport, 294 Or. 319 (Oregon res judicata/claim preclusion elements)
Burget v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661 (pleading facts accepted as true at motion to dismiss stage)
Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494 (leave to amend standards after dismissal)
Nelson v. Emerald People’s Util. Dist., 318 Or. 99 (issue preclusion requires identical issue that was essential to prior decision)