United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.)
reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
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. ¶
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.)
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.)
August 16, 2019, Plaintiffs brought suit in the Superior
Court of California and on October 15, 2019, Wells Fargo
removed this matter. (See Removal.)
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
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.
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).
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
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 ...