Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01428/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01428-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT PATRICK ZAPPIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1428 WQH (DHB)

ORDER

vs.

WORLD SAVINGS F.S.B.,

WACHOVIA F.S.B., WELLS FARGO

HOME MORTGAGE, and GOLDEN

WEST SAVINGS ASSOCIATION

SERVICE CO., a California Company;

SANDRA KNOWLES, an individual;

GUSTAVO RODRIGUEZ, an

individual; KEN REED, an individual;

DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Consolidate Separate Actions

(“Motion to Consolidate”) (ECF No. 38) filed by Defendants Wells Fargo and Golden

West. 

BACKGROUND

On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff Albert Zappia initiated this action by filing a

complaint.

- 1 - 14cv1428 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01428-WQH-DHB Document 52 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 5
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

On October 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against

Defendants World Savings F.S.B. (“World”), Wachovia F.S.B. (“Wachovia”), Wells

Fargo, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), and Golden West Savings Association Co. (“Golden

West”). (ECF No. 17). The property which is the subject of this action is 1560

Stevenson Drive, San Marcos, California 92708. Plaintiff provides a legal description

of the property. See ECF No. 17 ¶ 24. Plaintiff’s action makes the following

allegations:

The Property was secured by an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (“ARM”) Note ... signed on August 22, 2002....

...

On December 7, 2003, Plaintiff filed for a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District Bankruptcy Court, Case[] [No.] 03- 010903-JH7.

...

During the time of the proceeding, both WORLD and/or WELLS FARGO

did not file any proof of claim to assert their right to the property and the debt.

...

On March 10, 2004, Plaintiff received a discharge from the bankruptcy court with WORLD and WELLS FARGO both listed as creditors whose

debts were discharged.

Plaintiff continued to make his monthly payments and approximately a year later he began to question certain activities that were taking place with WORLD. He began to receive invoices statements from Wachovia.

Plaintiff does not believe that the First Note was allegedly assigned to WACHOVIA ... without a concurrent assignment of the First Deed of

Trust, the First Deed of Trust became invalid.

Id. ¶¶ 26, 31, 34, 37-39. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint asserts seven causes of

action including: (1) accounting and violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

(“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. section 2605, 24 C.F.R. 3500, against Defendants Wachovia and

Wells Fargo; (2) violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(“RICO”) 18 U.S.C. section 1961-63 et seq., mail fraud and wire fraud against all

Defendants; (3) violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) against

all Defendants; (4) Declaratory Relief against all Defendants; (5) violation of the Truth

In Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. section 1641g, against Defendants Wachovia and

Wells Fargo; (6) violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq. against

Defendants Wachovia and Wells Fargo; and (7) Quiet Title. See ECF No. 17.

- 2 - 14cv1428 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01428-WQH-DHB Document 52 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 5
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

On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff initiated a second action by filing a Complaint in

the San Diego County Superior Court against Defendant World (“second state action”). 

(14cv2873-BEN-DHB, ECF No. 1-2). The property which is the subject of Plaintiff’s

second state court action is 1560 Stevenson Court, San Marcos, California. Plaintiff

provides a legal description of the property. See 14cv2873-BEN-DHB, ECF No. 1-2

¶ 1. Plaintiff’s second state court action makes the following allegations:

Plaintiff is named on an Adjustable Rate Mortgage Note dated August 22, 2002.... [World] is identified on the Note as the “Lender.” The

PROPERTY is secured by a Deed of Trust ... in which WORLD is the

Lender/Beneficiary, Plaintiff is the Trustor and [Golden West] is the

Trustee.

Id. ¶ 9.

The Deed is void because WORLD has not answered to our written

request for verification of a debt after a discharge in a December 7, 2003, Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in the Southern District of California,

Case No. 03-10903-JH7. Plaintiff did not during any time before, during or after the bankruptcy proceeding reaffirm, redeem or surrender the

property to WORLD, and there was no “Proof of Claim” filed with the

court...

...

After the discharge of bankruptcy on March 9, 2004, up until November 2007, Plaintiff has no new request for any modification new contract from WORLD regarding the debt. During the months from December 2003 to November 2007, Plaintiff made payments in excess of $195,000 to

WORLD. After November 30, 2007, WORLD has made no attempt to collect on the debt for the past seven years and Plaintiff alleges and

believes that they have abandoned any claims or interest to the debt.

Id. ¶¶ 5, 10. Plaintiff’s second state court action asserted two causes of action including

(1) quiet title, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 760.010-764.080, cancellation of Deed, Cal. Civ.

Code § 3412, and (2) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Id.

On December 4, 2014, Defendant World removed Plaintiff’s second state court

action to the United States District Court - Southern District of California pursuant to

28 U.S.C. section 1332 by filing a Notice of Removal. The case was assigned to United

States District Judge Benitez, 14cv2873-BEN-DHB.1

On December 12, 2014, Defendants Wells Fargo and Golden West filed this

1

 On January 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand (14cv2873-BEN-DHB, ECF No. 8)

which is currently pending.

- 3 - 14cv1428 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01428-WQH-DHB Document 52 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Motion to Consolidate. (ECF No. 38). Defendants seek to consolidate this case,

14cv1428-WQH-DHB, with 14cv2873-BEN-DHB assigned to Judge Benitez. 

Defendants contend that consolidation is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 42 because both actions involve common questions of law and fact, and both

actions involve the same parties, transaction, and events. Defendants contend that there

is potential for unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense and conflicting

results if the cases are separately adjudicated. See ECF No. 38-1.

On December 31, 2014, Defendants filed a Notice of Plaintiff’s Failure to Oppose

Motion to Consolidate. (ECF No. 41).

RULING OF COURT

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides in pertinent part that “[w]hen

actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court ... it

may order all actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning

proceedings as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). The

district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the

same district. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California,

877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff’s first action and second state court action both involve the same parties

and are based on similar claims; both involve the same property and transaction; and

both involve substantially the same facts and questions of law. The Court will order the

Clerk of Court to prepare a Notice of Related Cases in accordance with Local Civil Rule

40.1. See CivLR 40.1(g) (“An action or proceeding is related to another action or

proceeding where both of them: (1) involve some of the same parties and are based on

the same or similar claims, or (2) involve the same property, transaction, or event, or

(3) involve substantially the same facts and the same questions of law.”). The Motion

to Consolidate is denied at this stage in the proceedings.

//

//

- 4 - 14cv1428 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01428-WQH-DHB Document 52 Filed 03/03/15 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate (ECF No.

38) is DENIED and the Clerk of Court shall prepare a proposed low-number order. 

DATED: March 3, 2015

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 5 - 14cv1428 WQH (DHB)

Case 3:14-cv-01428-WQH-DHB Document 52 Filed 03/03/15 Page 5 of 5