Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Michele A. Spence v. Wells Fargo Bank

April 18, 2011

MICHELE A. SPENCE,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 10)

I. INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiff Michele A. Spence ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Defendant"). Plaintiff proceeds pro se. Currently before the court is Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff filed opposition to Defendant's motion and a request for judicial notice on March 17, 2011. (Docs. 16, 17). Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiffs' opposition and request for judicial notice on April 9, 2011. (Doc. 19).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

Although the allegations of the complaint are unclear, it appears that Plaintiff's claims arise out of Defendant's attempt to enforce a promissory note concerning real property. (See Comp. at 2). Plaintiff complains that Defendant has not presented a valid proof of claim because Defendant's are only in possession of a photocopy of the promissory note, not the original.

According to the complaint, on July 23, 2010, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant "requesting the original wet ink signature as well as the Deed of Trust, document assignments, and required public recordings as evidence that [Defendant is] in fact a damaged party and the true creditor to establish proof of claim within 30 days." (Comp. at 5). Defendant did not respond.

On September 24, 2010, Plaintiff sent a second letter to Defendant requesting proof of claim. Defendant again ignored Plaintiff's request for verification of the debt.

Plaintiff requests a declaration as to whether or not Defendant's have standing to enforce the promissory note. Plaintiff contends that Defendant has no right to enforce the promissory note because Defendant is not a "note holder in due course."

III. LEGAL STANDARD.

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint lacks sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1990). To sufficiently state a claim to relief and survive a 12(b) (6) motion, the pleading "does not need detailed factual allegations" but the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Mere "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. Rather, there must be "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. In other words, the "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, ----, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Ninth Circuit has summarized the governing standard, in light of Twombly and Iqbal, as follows: "In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the nonconclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief." Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Apart from factual insufficiency, a complaint is also subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where it lacks a cognizable legal theory, Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699, or where the allegations on their face "show that relief is barred" for some legal reason, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).

In deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all "well-pleaded factual allegations" in the pleading under attack. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. A court is not, however, "required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.2001). "When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, if a district court considers evidence outside the pleadings, it must normally convert the 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, and it must give the nonmoving party an opportunity to respond." United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir.2003). "A court may, however, consider certain materials-documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice-without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment." Id. at 908.

IV. DISCUSSION.

Plaintiff's first cause of action seeks a declaration regarding whether or not Defendant has standing to enforce the promissory note. Plaintiff's second cause of action asserts "theft of public funds." Plaintiff's third cause of action is for breach of contract. Plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with federal pleading standards. The complaint does not contain ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.