United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, United
States District Judge.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND 
before the Court is Plaintiffs Teri Ann and Gerald E.
Kapanoske's ("Plaintiffs") Motion to Remand.
(See Dkt. No. 22 (hereinafter, "Mot.").)
After considering the papers filed in support of and in
opposition to the instant Motion, the Court deems this matter
appropriate for resolution without oral argument of counsel.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; CD. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the
following reasons, the Court DENIES
own the property located at 2950 Glenwood Circle, Corona,
California in the County of Riverside (the "Subject
Property"). (See Dkt. No. 16 (hereinafter,
"FAC") | 3.) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
("Wells Fargo") is a national banking association
("NBA"). (Dkt. No. 1 (hereinafter,
"Removal") at 3; see also FAC 1} 4.)
Defendant NBS Default Services, LLC ("Defendant
NBS"), is a limited liability company. (Removal at 4.)
March 4, 2003, Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Property.
(FAC j[ 10.) Plaintiffs executed a promissory note and a deed
of trust in the amount of $300, 000 with World Savings Bank,
FSB ("WSB"). (See FAC | 64; see
also Removal at 7.) Plaintiffs' loan with WSB was a
conventional thirty-year mortgage with a fixed interest rate
of 6.5% and a monthly payment of $1, 896.21. (Declaration of
Teri Ann Kapanoske (Removal, Ex. B at 57) | 6.) On or about
December 20, 2005, based on advice from WSB, Plaintiffs
refinanced their mortgage and executed a promissory note and
deed of trust in the amount of $500, 000. (Removal at 7.)
Effective December 31, 2007, WSB changed its name to Wachovia
Mortgage, WSB ("Wachovia"). (Removal at 3.) In
2009, Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia. (Id.)
about June 1, 2010, Plaintiffs received a "step-rate
loan modification" from Wells Fargo. (Removal at 7.)
After making payments for three years, Plaintiffs suspected
their payments were being misapplied because their loan
balance did not decrease, while their monthly payments
continued to increase. (Removal at 7-8.) In fall of 2014,
Plaintiffs contacted Wells Fargo to resolve these
discrepancies and prevent loan default. (Removal at 8.) Wells
Fargo allegedly instructed Plaintiffs to cease making
payments and remain in default so that Wells Fargo could
review their account and provide a loan modification.
(Id.; FAC ¶ 14.) However, in early 2015, Wells
Fargo allegedly denied their request for a loan modification
because Wells Fargo claimed that Plaintiffs' income was
too low to afford their home. (Removal at 8; see
also FAC If 15.) At the time, Plaintiffs were
approximately $27, 000 in arrears on their payments. (FAC
¶ 16.) According to Plaintiffs, Wells Fargo then
demanded full payment to make their loan current. (FAC ¶
around March 2015, Plaintiffs applied for foreclosure
prevention assistance from Keep Your Home California
("KYHC"). (FAC 117.) Plaintiffs allege that Wells
Fargo confirmed Plaintiffs' participation in the KYHC
program for loan reinstatement assistance. (Id.)
Further, Plaintiffs claim that Wells Fargo knew KYHC only
provided reinstatement assistance for amounts up to $50, 000.
(FAC ¶ 18.) In November 2015, KYHC approved
Plaintiffs' eligibility for assistance. (FAC ¶ 19.)
However, Plaintiffs further aver that Wells Fargo
purposefully increased Plaintiffs' reinstatement amount
to exceed KYHC's $50, 000 limit. (See FAC 122.)
Thus, on or about December 23, 2015, a Wells Fargo
representative told Plaintiffs that KYHC denied them
assistance because Plaintiffs' past due balance of $55,
737.86 exceeded $50, 000. (FAC Iflf 20-21.) On or about
February 16, 2016, Defendants recorded a Notice of Default.
(FAC ¶ 28.) On or about May 23, 2016, Defendants filed a
Notice of Trustee's Sale. (FAC jf 29.)
27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants in
the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.
(See Terri [sic] Ann Kapanoske v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. (hereinafter, "Kapanoske F\ No.
16-cv-0512-BRO-KK, ECF No. 1, Ex. A; see also FAC
¶ 30.) Defendants removed the action to this Court on
July II, 2016. (Kapanoske I, ECF No. 1.) On August
10, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, (Kapanoske
I, ECF No. 14), which the Court denied on September 9,
2016, (Kapanoske I, ECF No. 34). Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss on August 25, 2016, (Kapanoske I,
ECF No. 26), which the Court granted on September 30, 2016,
(Kapanoske I, ECF No. 41). The Court held the
majority of Plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Home
Owners Loan Act, and dismissed Plaintiffs' preempted
claims with prejudice. (See id.; see also
FAC If 31.) Though the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' breach
of contract claim without prejudice, (see Kapanoske
I, ECF No. 41), Plaintiffs never amended their complaint
to reassert their breach of contract claim, (see FAC
¶ 32). They opted, instead, to pursue informal
resolution directly with Defendants. (Id.)
March 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed another Complaint in the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.
(See Removal, Ex. A (hereinafter,
"Compl.").) On April 26, 2017, Defendant Wells
Fargo removed the action, invoking this Court's diversity
jurisdiction. (See Removal.) On May 26, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion. (See Mot.) On June 5,
2017, Wells Fargo opposed the Motion. (See ...