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.

Mendez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 11, 2013

YOLANDA MENDEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC. 15]

THOMAS J. WHELAN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage's ("Wells Fargo") motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Plaintiff Yolanda Mendez opposes.

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Wells Fargo's motion [Doc. 15].

I. BACKGROUND

On or about November 2, 2010, Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage loaned $97, 844.00 to Plaintiff Yolanda Mendez to finance her purchase of real property located at 260 Morongo Drive, Imperial, California (the "Property"). ( FAC [Doc. 14], ¶¶ 6-7.) The loan is secured by a deed of trust that encumbers the Property. ( Id. )

The Fair Housing Administration ("FHA") insures the loan. ( FAC, ¶¶ 7, 15, 22.) Yolanda alleges the FHA required the terms of the loan to conform to various FHA requirements. ( Id., ¶ 7.) Specifically, the FHA promulgated "Additional Closing Conditions, " dictating that the loan payment would not exceed $725.24. ( Id., ¶ 7.) Yolanda asserts Wells Fargo represented that her initial monthly installments would not exceed $704.95. ( Id., ¶¶ 12, 15.)

On or about September 25, 2011, nearly a year after the loan was entered, Wells Fargo notified Yolanda that a review of her escrow account revealed she owed an additional $2, 047.17. ( FAC, ¶ 24.) Wells Fargo claims the taxes assessed against the Property were higher than Wells Fargo originally estimated. ( MTD [Doc. 15] pp. 3, 8.) Wells Fargo, therefore, asked Yolanda to choose between three new monthly payment plans, all for higher amounts than Yolanda's initial monthly payment plan, in order to cover the outstanding balance. ( FAC, ¶ 14.)

On September 6, 2012, Yolanda sued Wells Fargo in the Imperial County Superior Court. Wells Fargo subsequently removed the action to this Court, and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. On April, 25, 2013, this Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. ( See Dismissal Order [Doc. 13].) The motion was denied with respect to Yolanda's claims for negligence, reformation and declaratory relief. The motion was granted without leave to amend as to the injunctive relief claim, but denied with leave to amend as to the claims for intentional misrepresentation and an accounting.

On May 10, 2013, Yolanda filed the FAC and asserted claims for (1) Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Negligence; (3) Reformation Based on Mistake; (4) Declaratory Relief; and (5) Accounting. Wells Fargo now seeks again to dismiss the FAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

If a cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must dismiss that cause of action. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint's sufficiency. See N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n. , 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for lack of a cognizable legal theory or for insufficient facts under a cognizable theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. , 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

As explained by the Supreme Court, "[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted). Instead, the allegations in the complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id . However, when determining whether to dismiss a complaint, a Court must consider all material allegations in the complaint, "even if doubtful in fact, " as true. Vasquez v. L.A. Cnty. , 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court must also construe the material allegations "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Id.

III. DISCUSSION

A. The negligence, reformation and declaratory relief claims are ...


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.