Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03074/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03074-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HARRY WONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAY SERVICING, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03074-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was heard on October 

13, 2016. ECF 14. The Court has considered the parties’ briefing and oral argument presented at 

the hearing. For the reasons stated on the record and below, the Court GRANTS the motion with 

leave to amend.

This case relates to Plaintiff Harry Wong’s right to appeal Defendant Fay Servicing, LLC’s

determination on his loan modification application, and Defendant’s alleged misrepresentation 

pursuant to the loss mitigation procedures set forth in 12 C.F.R. section 1024.41. The Court first 

finds that Plaintiff has failed to joined indispensable parties – Maryanne Wong and Philip Wong, 

who were listed as co-borrowers on the “Loan Modification Agreement” along with Plaintiff. 

Request for Judicial Notice ISO Mot., Ex. 2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). Without their participation, 

Defendant would be at risk of multiple and potentially inconsistent obligations. E.g., Patera v. 

Citibank, N.A., 79 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2015). On this basis, the motion is granted. 

In his opposition and at the hearing, Plaintiff requested leave to amend to add these required 

parties. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to add these required parties.

Second, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not adequately pled Claim 1, violation of 12 

C.F.R. section 1041(h) related to his right to appeal Defendant’s denial of certain loan 

Case 5:16-cv-03074-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 2
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

modification options. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that the decision “included several denials of 

other foreclosure alternatives, including other modification programs,” but failed to identify the 

specific loss mitigation options that Defendant denied Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 18. In amending his 

complaint, Plaintiff shall allege facts or attach documents showing the loss mitigation options 

denied for which he would have had plausible grounds to appeal. Moreover, Plaintiff must allege 

facts to support a plausible basis for his eligibility for those options. 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41(h)(1) 

(stating that “a servicer shall permit a borrower to appeal the servicer’s determination to deny a 

borrower’s loss mitigation application for any trial or permanent loan modification program 

available to the borrower”) (italics added).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Any amended complaint must be filed on or before

November 3, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03074-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 2