Webb v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
4:12-cv-00805
S.D. Tex.Jan 11, 2013Background
- Webb filed a state-court suit in Harris County on March 5, 2012 alleging breach of contract and TDCA violations, with defenses of waiver and quasi-estoppel, seeking TRO/PI to prevent foreclosure.
- Wells Fargo serviced the loan and allegedly participated in HAMP/HAFA; Webb alleges Wells Fargo did not actually consider him for HAMP/HAFA options.
- Wells Fargo removed the case to this federal court on March 15, 2012, asserting diversity jurisdiction; Webb moved to remand, which the court denied.
- Wells Fargo and Barrett moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Webb sought leave to amend the complaint in his responses.
- The court analyzed the original state-court petition, denied Webb’s amendments, and granted the motions to dismiss all claims against Wells Fargo and Barrett, and denied the injunction and leave to amend.
- The judgment dismisses all claims and closes with denial of Webb’s temporary injunction request and amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Webb states a breach of contract claim. | Webb contends Wells Fargo breached the deed of trust by not offering HAMP/HAFA options. | Wells Fargo/Barrett argue there was no contractual obligation to review for HAMP/HAFA. | Dismissed; no contractual obligation to offer HAMP/HAFA existed. |
| Whether Webb states TDCA claims against Wells Fargo/Barrett. | Violations of TDCA §§392.301(a)(8), 392.304(a)(8), (a)(19) through foreclosure actions and misrepresentations. | No actionable TDCA violations proven; no private right of action for HAMP/HAFA guidelines. | Dismissed; claims insufficiently pled. |
| Whether Webb’s waiver/quasi-estoppel defenses survive dismissal. | Waiver and quasi-estoppel prevented foreclosure actions. | Defenses are asserted against claims that defendants did not plead and are improper. | Dismissed as improper defenses to non-pled claims. |
| Whether Webb should be granted leave to amend the complaint. | Would cure pleading defects with an amended complaint. | Amendment would be futile; not shown how to succeed. | Denied; amendments not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (requires plausible claims and limited standard for pleading before discovery)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must plead plausible entitlement to relief)
- Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010) (uses plausibility framework in Rule 12(b)(6) context)