United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT
MOVANT MARIA OSUNA’S MOTION TO INTERVENE (DKT.
99, FILED MAY 3, 2016)
HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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. Trial in this matter is currently
scheduled for November 1, 2016.
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
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.
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).
Intervention of Right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
first seeks to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), which provides as
of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted