Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02323/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02323-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA BEST-SANTOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02323-RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Shortly after the pending motion to dismiss in this action was filed, the parties filed a 

stipulation to defer further briefing. In that stipulation, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

represented to the court that (1) “in-house counsel for the bank authorized a loan modification 

review for the subject loan,” (2) “[t]he outcome of a modification review may resolve some or all 

the issues in this litigation,” and (3) “[g]iven that Wells Fargo shall be conducting a loan 

modification review, the sale on the subject property shall be continued . . . .”

Subsequently, however, Wells Fargo asserted in a Case Management Conference 

Statement that “obstacles had arisen” and that it wished to proceed with the motion to dismiss in 

lieu of conducting a loan modification review. Whether Wells Fargo had any independent legal 

obligation to consider plaintiff for a loan modification/assumption prior to the initiation of this 

action is a contested issue, subject to resolution at a later juncture. At this point the concern is that 

Wells Fargo entered into judicial stipulation, adopted by court order, in which it undertook to 

engage in the loan modification review process. To be excused from that commitment, Wells 

Case 3:15-cv-02323-RS Document 39 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 15-cv-02323-RS

2

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

Northern District of California

Fargo must provide a more fulsome explanation of any circumstances constituting good cause.

Accordingly, the hearing date on the pending motion to dismiss is continued to March 3, 

2016. No later than February 25, 2016, Wells Fargo shall file a declaration or declarations setting 

forth the reasons it contends it must or should be released from its commitment to offer plaintiff a 

loan modification review. In the alternative, Wells Fargo may file a notice that it will proceed 

with loan modification review, in which case the parties should stipulate to such further 

continuances of the hearing date and any foreclosure sale date as may be necessary to permit loan

modification review to be completed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02323-RS Document 39 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 2