Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-md-02015/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-md-02015-68/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, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-md-02015-RS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION BY 

INDIVIDUAL CLASS MEMBER

I. INTRODUCTION

Class member Mark E. Kunde moves for an order directing Wells Fargo to stay its

foreclosure proceedings on the basis that Wells Fargo breached the settlement agreement 

previously reached in this class action. Kunde contends Wells Fargo denied him the opportunity 

for loan modification under either the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) or 

Wells Fargo’s Mortgage Assistance Program 2 (“MAP2R”). Wells Fargo counters that (1) the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this Court of jurisdiction, (2) Younger abstention applies, (3) 

res judicata bars Kunde’s claims, and (4) Kunde fails to meet his burden to show that an 

injunction should issue.

Importantly, Kunde brings this action as an individual class member represented by 

individual counsel, not class counsel. Because Kunde advances no basis for this Court to consider 

his request in this posture, his motion is procedurally defective and, accordingly, is denied.

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 723 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 3
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

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In February 2006, Mark E. Kunde entered into a “Pick-A-Payment” (“PAP”) loan 

agreement with World Savings Bank, FSB.1 On December 10, 2010, the parties to this class 

action executed a settlement agreement (“the agreement”) to resolve claims arising out of the 

origination of PAP mortgage loans. Among other benefits, Wells Fargo promised to make two 

loan modification programs available to qualifying settlement class members with outstanding 

PAP loans: the federal government’s HAMP program and a proprietary Wells Fargo program 

called MAP2R. 

The agreement divides the settlement class into three groups. Relevant for purposes of the 

instant dispute, Class C members are defined as borrowers already in default. Agreement § IV(B)-

(C). Because of their existing default status, Class C members were immediately eligible for loan 

modification review. 

Kunde is a Class C member. He contends his counsel provided to Wells Fargo the 

financial documentation required for consideration for loan modification on six different 

occasions, yet Wells Fargo somehow denied his application on the ground that he failed to provide 

the necessary documents. Wells Fargo responds that none of Kunde’s submissions contained the 

documentation needed to evaluate Kunde’s application. As a result, his request for loan 

modification was considered, but repeatedly denied.

On May 23, 2013, almost a year after denying Kunde’s final attempt to obtain a loan 

modification, Wells Fargo filed a complaint in Oregon state court seeking to foreclose on his 

property. Two years later, the Oregon state court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary 

judgment. Kunde then filed a motion for reconsideration. In response to Wells Fargo’s 

opposition, Kunde filed a reply, asserting, apparently for the first time, Wells Fargo’s alleged 

breach of the settlement agreement in this class action. The Oregon state court later denied 

 

1 World Savings Bank, FSB, Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. are 

hereinafter referred to as “Wells Fargo.”

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 723 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 09-md-02015-RS

3

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

Kunde’s motion for reconsideration, and the only remaining issue in that action is Kunde’s 

objection to the dollar amount of his default in the proposed judgment. 

This action was filed on the heels of the Oregon state court’s decision. Kunde seeks an 

order directing Wells Fargo to stay its foreclosure proceeding on the basis that the defendants

“breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement in a number of ways, including: (1) failing to 

maintain a dedicated staff for Mr. Kunde’s loan modification application; (2) failing to assign a 

primary point of contact to deal with Mr. Kunde’s loan modification application (leading to 

confusion and delay in the review process); (3) failing properly to request any missing 

documentation from Mr. Kunde; and (4) failing to review Mr. Kunde’s financial documentation 

properly for a HAMP Modification and/or a MAP2R Modification.” Mot. for Stay at 3:8–13. 

Wells Fargo denies these allegations.

III. DISCUSSION

Kunde’s motion fails from the start. As a threshold matter, Kunde does not identify any 

basis that permits individual class members to bring separate and independent breach arguments

not coming through class counsel. While court appointment of separate counsel is sometimes 

appropriate where intra-class conflict is deemed “fundamental,” see In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va.

Mortg. Lending Practices Litig., 795 F.3d 380, 393–94 (3d Cir. 2015), Kunde advances no such 

argument here. Accordingly, Kunde’s motion is procedurally defective and, therefore, is denied.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

 

2

Even if Kunde’s motion were properly before this Court, several procedural hurdles would 

potentially stand in the way of his obtaining relief, including the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, 

Younger abstention, and res judicata.

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 723 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 3