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.

Munguia v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 26, 2016

LETICIA MUNGUIA
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., ET AL.

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

          MOVANT MARIA OSUNA’S MOTION TO INTERVENE (DKT. 99, FILED MAY 3, 2016)

          THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On January 26, 2015, pro se plaintiff Leticia Munguia filed a verified complaint against defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), NBS Default Services, LLC (“NBS”), APB Properties, LLC (“APB”), and Does 1 through 10. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff’s initial complaint asserted claims under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBOR”), Cal. Civil Code §§ 2923, 2924; California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7; the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, 29 U.S.C. §§ 52-53; and the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code §§ 16700, et seq. Id. Plaintiff also asserted a claim for declaratory relief. Id.

         In February 2015, defendants Wells Fargo and APB moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). By order dated March 30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ respective motions. Dkt. 37. Specifically, the Court concluded that plaintiff had stated claims against Wells Fargo for wrongful foreclosure and violation of the HBOR, but dismissed the remainder of the claims asserted against Wells Fargo without prejudice. The Court likewise concluded that plaintiff had stated a claim for wrongful foreclosure against APB, but dismissed without prejudice all other claims asserted against that defendant.

         On April 27, 2015, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. 42. The FAC alleges claims against Wells Fargo and NBS for violation of the HBOR and UCL, FAC ¶¶ 44-90, as well as claims against Wells Fargo, NBS, and APB for wrongful foreclosure and declaratory relief, id. ¶¶ 91-124.[1] Trial in this matter is currently scheduled for November 1, 2016.

         On May 2, 2016, prospective intervenor Maria Osuna (“Osuna”) filed a motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b). Dkt. 99. On May 16, 2016, defendants filed an opposition to the instant motion. Dkt. 107. On June 6, 2016, the Court held oral argument on the instant motion. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Prospective intervenor Maria Osuna has been a co-occupant of the foreclosed property in this action since the signing of the Deed of Trust on July 13, 2004. Mot. Intervene ¶ 10. Osuna asserts that she has made payments towards the property and utilities since 2004, and that “she has substantial interest in the subject matter of the action outcome of the case.” Mot. Intervene ¶¶ 11, 18. However, Osuna is not actually listed on the Deed of Trust and is not a borrower on the loan that gives rise to the instant suit. Compl. Ex. A.

         Osuna avers that she decided to intervene in this action after what took place at plaintiff’s scheduled deposition on March 23, 2016. Mot. Intervene ¶ 19. Osuna contends that on that day, plaintiff Leticia Munguia, as a result of “the very heated and uncomfortable atmosphere that was created [just before the deposition] by APB’s attorney Sam Muriella, ” experienced emotional break downs that prevent her from adequately protecting Osuna’s interests in this action. Mot. Intervene ¶¶ 2, 21. Accordingly, Osuna now seeks to intervene as a plaintiff of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or, in the alternative, to permissively intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Intervention of Right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)

         Osuna first seeks to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), which provides as follows:

         Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted ...


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.