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.

Kathryn O. Smith, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank

November 3, 2011

KATHRYN O. SMITH, ET AL.
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, ET AL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Christina A. Snyder, U.S. District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Title

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

RITA SANCHEZ N/A N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers:) DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO'S MOTION TO DISMISS (filed 09/16/2011)

DEFENDANT MATRIX'S MOTION TO DISMISS (filed 10/17/2011) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Court finds these motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing dates of November 7, 2011, and November 28, 2011, are hereby vacated, and the matters are taken under submission.

On June 20, 2011, plaintiffs Kathryn O. Smith and Michael W. Ball (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"); Matrix Services ("Matrix"); Fidelity National Title Ins. Co ("Fidelity"); Assured Lender Services, Inc. ("Assured"); and DOES 1-100. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged a litany of claims against defendants including violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; and California's Rosenthal Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.

On July 28, 2011, defendants removed this action pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition to plaintiff's RICO claim, Marix noted that several of plaintiff's state law claims were predicated on underlying violations of federal law. Notice of Removal ¶ 3; Compl. ¶¶ 141, 158, 220, 251-252. Specifically, plaintiffs' sixth cause of action for Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. arose, in part, from violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681; the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.; and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1639. Compl. ¶¶ 141, 158. Further, plaintiffs' eleventh cause of action for violation of California's Rosenthal Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, arose, in part, from violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601--17. Id. ¶ 220.

On August 24, 2011, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint ("FAC") against Wells Fargo, Matrix, Assured and DOES 1--100 (collectively, "defendants).*fn1 Plaintiffs' FAC alleges claims for (1) deceit pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1709--1710; (2) predatory lending pursuant to Cal. Fin. Code §§ 4970--4979.8; (3) promissory estoppel; (4) fraud by intentional misrepresentation; (5) fraud by concealment; (6) quiet title; (7) violation of Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 2934(d)--(e); (8) mistake; and (9) wrongful foreclosure in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.

On September 16, defendant Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. On October 17, 2011, defendant Matrix filed a ...


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.