Ngoc Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
749 F. Supp. 2d 1022
| N.D. Cal. | 2010Background
- Nguyen filed a state-law mortgage dispute against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and ETS in Contra Costa County; Wells Fargo removed to federal court asserting diversity.
- Plaintiff alleged wrongful foreclosure, § 2923.5/2924 violations, misrepresentation, concealment, conspiracy, unconscionability, quiet title, § 17200, conversion, and declaratory/injunctive relief; ETS joined removal.
- Court granted remand denial and granted Wells Fargo dismissal in part; proceedings addressed remand, sanctions, dismissal, and strike motions in one Amended Order.
- Court treated Wells Fargo as a citizen of South Dakota for diversity purposes; determined ETS status not dispositive for diversity and found complete diversity exists.
- Court held amount in controversy satisfied; plaintiff’s damages and loan amount supported federal jurisdiction; removed action remained properly in federal court.
- Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss all ten claims was granted; several claims were found preempted by HOLA and some dismissed for failure to tender or lack of specificity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is removal proper based on diversity and amount in controversy? | Nguyen asserts both parties are California citizens and amount under $75,000. | Wells Fargo asserts South Dakota citizenship for Wells Fargo N.A. and adequate amount in controversy. | Diversity exists; amount in controversy met; removal proper. |
| Does HOLA preempt state-law claims against a federally chartered bank? | Claims not preempted; Mabry not controlling here. | Claims primarily concern loan origination, foreclosure, and servicing; preempted by § 560.2. | All claims were preempted and dismissed. |
| Are plaintiff's fraud/conspiracy/related claims time-barred or pled with sufficient specificity? | Claims timely and adequately pled. | Claims time-barred and not pled with Rule 9(b) particularity. | Fraud/conspiracy/conversion claims dismissed for time-bar and lack of specificity. |
| Is tender required to pursue wrongful foreclosure/quiet title and related relief? | No tender requirement asserted for these claims. | Tender required to challenge foreclosure or quiet title actions. | Tender required; claims 1, 7, and 10 dismissed for lack of tender. |
| Should declaratory relief and punitive-damages-related claims be struck or dismissed? | Requests broad relief including declarations and punitive damages. | Remedies duplicative or not properly pled; punitive damages subject to strike. | Tenth claim dismissed; strike motion moot as entire action dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (2006) (national bank citizenship determined by main office designated in articles)
- Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208 (2010) (preemption of 2923.5; relief limited to postponement, not damages)
- Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp., 514 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2008) (HOLA preemption of loan-origination/disclosure claims under 560.2)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strictly construe removal jurisdiction against removal authority)
- Karlsen v. American Sav. & Loan Ass'n., 15 Cal. App. 3d 112 (1971) (tender rule for challenging foreclosure; must tender full debt)