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.

Plaintiffs in Pro Per Errol v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 23, 2019

PLAINTIFFS IN PRO PER ERROL AND TABATHA LOCKE, Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AND AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [7]

          OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiffs Errol and Tabatha Locke, proceeding pro se, bring this action against various Defendants for multiple claims based on an alleged wrongful foreclosure sale of real property located at 2116 West 77th Street, Los Angeles, California 90047 (the “Subject Property”). (See Notice of Removal (“Removal”) Ex A (“Compl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. (Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”), ECF No. 7.)

         For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

         II. BACKGROUND

         In 2005, Plaintiffs took out a loan in the amount of $340, 000 backed by a deed of trust in the Subject Property. (Req. for Judicial Notice Exhibit 2.) In 2008, Plaintiffs fell behind three months of payments. (Compl. ¶ 2.) To make up the missed payments, Plaintiffs entered into multiple “Special Forbearance Programs.” (Compl. ¶ 2.)

         Plaintiffs allege that representatives of Wells Fargo made promises that once they completed the program their mortgage would be modified through the “Making Home Affordable Act.” (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 14.) However, their loan was not modified despite their alleged success in completing the programs. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Defendants represented that the modification was denied because of Plaintiffs' income and a broken forbearance agreement. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 15.) As a result of these circumstances, Plaintiffs faced foreclosure and were escorted from their home on June 16, 2010. (Compl. ¶ 3.)

         In 2018, Plaintiffs requested Wells Fargo to reconsider their decision to foreclose on Plaintiffs' home, but on November 15, 2018, Wells Fargo reaffirmed their decision. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs believe that Defendants refuse to admit that they wrongfully foreclosed on the Subject Property in retaliation for Plaintiffs' complaint to the Comptroller of the Currency. (Compl. ¶ 10.)

         On August 16, 2019, Plaintiffs brought suit in the Superior Court of California and on October 15, 2019, Wells Fargo removed this matter. (See Removal.)

         III. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

         Wells Fargo requests judicial notice of ten documents: Exhibit 1: Interest First Note; Exhibit 2: Deed of Trust; Exhibit 3: Assignment of Deed of Trust; Exhibit 4: Notice of Default; Exhibit 5: Trustee's Deed Upon Sale; Exhibit 6: Voluntary Chapter Seven Bankruptcy Petition; Exhibit 7: Amended Schedule(s) and/or Statement(s); Exhibit 8: Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay; Exhibit 9: Discharge of Debtor; Exhibit 10: Bankruptcy Docket for Voluntary Chapter Seven Bankruptcy Court. (Req. for Judicial Notice 2-3, ECF No. 8.) Plaintiffs do not oppose Wells Fargo's request.

         A court is generally limited to the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion but may consider documents incorporated by reference in the complaint or properly subject to judicial notice without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. See Lee, 250 F.3d at 688-89. “[A] court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). A document may be incorporated by reference where neither party disputes its authenticity and the pleading necessarily relies on the document. See Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006).

         The Deed of Trust, Assignment of Deed of Trust, Notice of Default and Trustee's Deed Upon Sale Deed of Trust are proper subjects of judicial notice because they are undisputed public documents recorded by the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. See, e.g., Grant v. Aurora Loan Servs., Inc., 736 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1264 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases granting judicial notice of documents recorded by the County Recorder's Office). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS judicial notice of the Deed of Trust, Assignment of Deed of Trust, Notice of Default and Trustee's Deed Upon Sale Deed of Trust.

         The Court Docket from the related Bankruptcy Petition and the Order are also proper subjects of judicial notice. See U.S. ex rel Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating the court “may take notice of proceedings [and related filings] in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a ...


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.