Pratap v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
63 F. Supp. 3d 1101
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Vi-ghyan and Sunila Pratap are the borrowers on four deeds of trust securing four real properties and defaulted on the loans, leading to foreclosures.
- Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and MERS (collectively “Defendants”) moved to dismiss the FAC and to strike portions thereof.
- The four properties are 718 Sunset, 730 Sunset, 1844 Bockman, and 1970 149th Avenue in California.
- Plaintiffs allege securitization of the notes and misownership of the loans, and robo-signed foreclosure documents as part of a securitization defect.
- The FAC asserts claims including slander of title, UCL, TILA, FDCPA, and RICO premised on securitization, assignment, and robo-signing theories.
- The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC in its entirety and denied as moot the motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slander of title viability | Plaintiffs allege robo-signing invalidates trustee substitutions. | Standing and lack of cognizable robo-signing claim require dismissal. | Dismissed with prejudice. |
| UCL claim viability | UCL stands on underlying unlawful acts by Defendants. | No standing; no underlying viable claims to borrow. | Dismissed with prejudice. |
| TILA claim timeliness and tender | Tender not required during pending foreclosure; equitable tolling possible. | Claims time-barred and untendered. | Dismissed with prejudice; statute of limitations applied. |
| FDCPA applicability to mortgage servicer | Wells Fargo allegedly a debt collector; FDCPA applies to communications. | Wells Fargo is a mortgage servicer collecting its own debt; not a debt collector and foreclosures not debt collection. | Dismissed with prejudice. |
| RICO plausibility | Concealment of securitization and robo-signing constitutes a RICO scheme. | Claims lack plausibility and are nearly identical to previously dismissed cases. | Dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. State of Cal., 784 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1986) (TILA statute of limitations and tolling principles; rescission time limits)
- Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A., 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (Standing to challenge securitization; minority view rejected here)
- Chan Tang v. Bank of America, N.A., 2012 WL 960373 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (robo-signing allegations insufficient without underlying facts)
- Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 2012 WL 3426278 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (standing to challenge assignments; robo-signing claims lacking standing)
- Maynard v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 4883202 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (standing to challenge robo-signed assignments; debt injuries)
- In re Sandri, 501 B.R. 369 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2013) (securitization challenges; standing considerations in bankruptcy context)