Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-md-02015/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-md-02015-67/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

IN RE: WACHOVIA CORP. “PICK-APAYMENT” MORTGAGE MARKETING 

AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

Case No. 09-md-02015-RS 

ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS 

MOTIONS

In late June and early July of 2014, Leticia Valladares, a member of the “Pick-A-Payment” 

mortgage settlement class, filed through counsel a hodgepodge of moving papers. Valladares asks

this court to issue an advisory opinion on the proper construction of the 2011 settlement agreement

(“the agreement”) which resolved this litigation. Valladares then intends to use the advisory 

opinion as ammunition in wrongful foreclosure proceedings currently pending in California state 

appellate court. Valladares’ approach is thoroughly misguided. For the reasons stated below, 

each of her motions is denied. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is suitable for 

disposition without oral argument. The August 6, 2015 hearing is vacated.

According to Valladares’ “motion for clarification,” defendants foreclosed upon and sold 

her residence in 2011. Valladares later repurchased the property. She then filed suit in state court,

seeking money damages on the grounds that the 2011 foreclosure was conducted in violation of

California law. Valladares later amended her complaint to include a claim that the foreclosure 

also infringed upon her rights as a member of the “Pick-A-Payment” settlement class. Relying, 

according to Valladares, on language in the agreement, the state trial court sustained defendants’

demurrer and dismissed the wrongful foreclosure action. Valladares appealed (presumably to the 

California court of appeal); those proceedings remain pending. 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 700 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 2
ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS

CASE NO. 09-md-02015-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

Valladares now asks this court to influence her state court proceedings by issuing an order 

“clarifying” certain provisions of the agreement.

1

 The United States Constitution, however, “bars 

federal courts from giving advisory opinions.” Indus. Comm. Sys., Inc. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., 

505 F.2d 152, 155 (9th Cir. 1974). Valladares’ submission can only be understood as an 

impermissible request for an advisory opinion. She does not seek any tangible relief—whether 

monetary, injunctive, or declaratory—in federal court. Because no “case or controversy” exists

here, this court lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, each of Valladares’ motions is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

 

1 Valladares’ reliance on Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is misplaced. She has

pointed to no colorable basis for reconsideration of the May 17, 2011 order approving the 

agreement. 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 700 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2