United States District Court, C.D. California
Present:The James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Remand.
Court, having been informed by the parties in this action
that they submit on the Court's tentative ruling
previously issued, hereby rules in accordance with the
tentative ruling as follows:
Kwadwo Hwenso Asare-Antwi (“Plaintiff”) filed a
motion to remand this case to state court. (Mot., Dkt. No.
13.) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (“Wells
Fargo”) opposed the motion. (Opp'n, Dkt. No. 22).
Plaintiff filed a reply. (Reply, Dkt. No. 24.)
following reasons, the Court denies the
motion to remand.
filed this action in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Orange County on April 17, 2019 against
defendants Wells Fargo, Quality Loan Service Corporation
(“Quality”), and Clear Recon Corp. (“Clear
Recon”). (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1-1.) Plaintiff brought
claims for (1) declaratory judgment; (2) intentional
misrepresentation; (3) cancellation of instruments; (4)
violation of Civil Code § 2924; (5) slander of title;
(6) breach of contract/estoppel; and (7) violation of Bus.
& Prof. Code § 17200 et. seq. (Id.)
alleges the following. Wells Fargo is the servicer on three
of Plaintiff's loans for properties located in Orange
County and Riverside County. (FAC, Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. B ¶
2.) Two of these loans for properties located at 12668
Chapman Ave. Unit 2305 (“Unit 2305”) and Unit
2405 (“Unit 2405”) in Garden Grove, CA were
originated by World Savings, FSB, and Wachovia Mortgage, FSB.
(Id. ¶ 3.) Wells Fargo filed Notices of Default
along with a declaration falsely alleging that it had
attempted to explore alternatives with Plaintiff prior to
filing the notice, but was unable to reach Plaintiff.
(Id. ¶ 5.) The Notices of Default allege that
Wells Fargo is the beneficiary, and Plaintiff disputes that
it is. (Id.) Wells Fargo also refused
Plaintiff's appeal of a denial of a loan modification and
refused to revise incorrect income amounts or explain its
errors in the modification evaluation. (Id. ¶
August 14, 2018, Wells Fargo had its agent, Clear Recon,
record a Notice of Default, but the deed of trust identifies
the trustee as Golden West. (Id. ¶ 42.) On the
same date, Wells Fargo had its agent, Quality, record a
Notice of Default. (Id. ¶ 70.) On April 15,
2019, Plaintiff informed Quality that the Notice of Trustee
Sale applicable to one of the properties was defective
because it identified the address, but did not identify a
unit number, and thus did not identify the property as
required under Civ. Code § 2924f(b)(1). (Id.
Notices of Default on the respective properties are defective
because Plaintiff disputes that Wells Fargo is the
beneficiary. (Id. ¶ 109.) As a result of the
defective Notices of Default, Quality and Clear Recon are
threatening to take title to Plaintiff's property for
payment to Wells Fargo, who Plaintiff says is without
authority to foreclose on Plaintiff. (Id. ¶
111.) Clear Recon and Quality have a legal duty to all
parties to the deed of trust-including Plaintiff-to exercise
good judgment, but instead have failed to establish that
Wells Fargo has the authority to exercise the power of sale
or substitute either entity as trustee. (Id.
¶¶ 118, 155.) By alleging that Wells Fargo is the
beneficiary, in their Notices of Default and Substitutions of
Trustee, Quality and Clear Recon engage in a deceptive and
unfair business practice. (Id. ¶149.) Clear
Recon, as trustee, along with Wells Fargo, had a duty to
ensure that Plaintiff had been contacted to explore
alternatives to foreclosure before recording their Notices of
Default. (Id. ¶ 170.) Likewise, they violated
Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.17 by failing to rely upon
competent and reliable evidence before recording instruments
in the land records. (Id. ¶ 173.)
2, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel filed a verified First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) correcting various
errors from the first complaint, including an allegation
regarding Plaintiff's primary U.S. residence address.
(FAC, Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. B ¶ 9.) In addition, Plaintiff
added causes of action for violation of the Homeowner Bill of
Rights (“HBOR”) and the breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. (Id. at 1.)
Citizenship of Parties
indicates that he is “an individual who resides in
England, with his United States primary residence in Orange
County, ” identified as Unit 2305, ” and that
“[t]hese are Plaintiff's primary U.S. residence and
an investment property which produces rental income and both
are part of Plaintiff's retirement assets.”
(Id. ¶ 16.)
respect to each of the defendants, Plaintiff alleges that (1)
Wells Fargo is headquartered in San Francisco, CA; (2)
Quality is a California corporation; and (3) Clear Recon ...