Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05626/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05626-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 WENDELL HARPER

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-5626 EDL

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

On December 24, 2014, Plaintiff Wendell Harper filed a complaint and sought leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On December 31, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court

granted Plaintiffs’ IFP request, and indicated that it would separately determine compliance with 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires the court to “dismiss the case at any time if the court determines

that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous.” See also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227

(9th Cir. 1984) (“courts may dismiss frivolous actions filed in forma pauperis”). Dismissal on these

grounds is often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective

defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Moreover, a Court is obligated “to consider issues related to federal subject

matter jurisdiction and may do so sua sponte.” OWB, REO, LLC v. Negrete, 2011 WL 1667916, at

*1 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2011) (Armstrong, J.) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S.

83, 93-94 (1998)). The Court requested that Plaintiff file either a consent or declination to

magistrate court jurisdiction, and Plaintiff consented to this court’s jurisdiction. The Court now

Case 3:14-cv-05626-EDL Document 7 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

dismisses the complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiffs’ complaint, entitled “Complaint for Unlawful Foreclosure: For Recovery of Assets

and Proceeds,” is based on largely unintellible allegations relating to a residential mortgage he first

obtained in 1989. Plaintiff alleges that he refinanced the mortgage several times, and filed for

various forms of bankruptcy protection over the years, though the timeline of events is somewhat

unclear. It is also unclear what part each defendant is alleged to have played in the eventual

foreclosure and sale of Plaintiff’s property. This confusion is compounded by Plaintiff’s extensive

reliance on descriptions of other court cases, as well as other individuals’ mortgages, properties and

foreclosures, without the consistent use of quotation marks or citations to indicate when the

statements relate to Plaintiff or to other unrelated people and events. From what the Court can glean

from the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he paid off his loan in full in 2006, but third-party debt

collectors continued to demand payment and Plaintiff received a Notice of Trustee’s Sale in 2010. 

Also during this time, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy protection and defendant Deutsche Bank

consummated a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the property as part of the bankruptcy proceeding

with defendant Wachovia Bank listed as the “custodian owner.” Deutsche Bank provided him with

another Notice of Trustee’s Sale in 2011, and defendant Ocwen Loans engineered a “fake auction”

to sell the property to one of Deutsche Bank’s partners. Plaintiff vacated the property in 2013 and

the property was sold in 2014. It is entirely unclear what role defendant Wells Fargo is alleged to

have played in these events. 

The Complaint contains eight claims: (1) Violation of State Law Prohibiting Unfair and

Deceptive Consumer Practices With Respect to Loan Servicing”; (2) “Violations of State Law

Prohibiting Unfair and Deceptive Consumer Practices With Respect to Foreclosure Processing”; (3)

“Violation of IRC Section 1398, IRM Sections 5.5.6.15, 5.9.6.18 and 5.9.6.4"; (4) “Violation of R.C.

2921.03"; (5) “26 U.S. Code § 7201- Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax”; (6) “Title 26 Tax Violations

Failure to File, Supply Information or Pay Tax- IRC § 7203"; (7) “Violation of the Revenue and

Taxation Code Section 23152-23155"; and (8) “Violation of Business and Profession Code Section

17200-17210." However, the Complaint does not specify which claims are brought against which

defendants or which of the underlying facts relate to each claim. Plaintiff's complaint fails to

Case 3:14-cv-05626-EDL Document 7 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Claims One, Two, Seven and Eight appear to allege violations of various California state laws.

Claim Four appears to be based on an alleged violation of a criminal provision of the Ohio Revised

Code, but it is unclear what connection Ohio has to any party or allegation in the Complaint.

3

include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” as

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 

Further, it appears that the crux of Plaintiff’s complaint is that none of the four defendants

had an ownership interest in the property yet they were somehow involved in orchestrating the

wrongful foreclosure and sale of his property, but all of Plaintiff’s federal claims are inexplicably

based on alleged violations of various bankruptcy and tax codes. For example, Claim Three appears

to relate to a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 1398, tax rules relating to individual bankruptcy filings, and

also references various Internal Revenue Manual descriptions of how to process Chapter 7

bankruptcy cases. However, there is no allegation that any defendant was responsible for processing

Plaintiff’s bankruptcy cases or how Plaintiff’s tax obligations in bankruptcy relate to any defendant. 

To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to challenge something that occurred during his bankruptcy

proceedings, his remedy is a bankruptcy appeal rather than a complaint in this Court. Claims Five

and Six relate to violations of criminal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Plaintiff has not

explained how any defendant has violated either of these provisions or why he, as an individual, has

a private right of action to enforce these statutes. Because Plaintiffs have failed to state a federal

claim against any defendant, all of the federal claims are dismissed. The Court declines to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).1

 Plaintiff’s

complaint is hereby dismissed.

Because leave to amend is freely granted, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended

complaint though such amendment may ultimately be futile. Any amended complaint must be filed

by February 27, 2015, and should clearly state Plaintiff’s factual allegations and make it plain which

allegations and causes of action relate to which defendants. Plaintiff may wish to seek assistance

from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling (415)

782-8982 or signing up for an appointment on the 15th Floor of the Courthouse, Room 2796. At the

Legal Help Center, Plaintiffs may speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal

help, but not legal representation. The Court also urges Plaintiffs to obtain a copy of the Pro Se

Case 3:14-cv-05626-EDL Document 7 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Handbook, available free of charge from the Court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov) or in the

Clerk's Office on the 16th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA.

Dated: February 11, 2015 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05626-EDL Document 7 Filed 02/11/15 Page 4 of 4