Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00084/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00084-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

1

Case No. 5:16-cv-00084-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

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

LEONARD G CISNEROS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:16-cv-00084-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Re: Docket No. 18)

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moves to dismiss Plaintiffs Leonard G. Cisneros and 

Gretel R. Cisneros’ first amended complaint.1 Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, 

with leave to amend.

2

 

The heart of Plaintiffs’ allegations is they and Wells Fargo had a deal, and Wells Fargo

didn’t hold up its side of the bargain. Plaintiffs allege that pursuant to a settlement agreement, 

they submitted a loan modification application to Wells Fargo, and Wells Fargo never sent them 

an “actual final written determination of eligibility for this modification.”

3

 But Wells Fargo has 

submitted copies of letters that it sent to Plaintiffs denying their loan modification application, 

however,

4

and Plaintiffs agree that the court can consider these documents.

5

The letters indicate 

 

1

See Docket No. 18.

2 Dismissal without leave to amend is only appropriate if it is clear that the complaint could not be 

saved by amendment. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2003).

3 Docket No. 15 at ¶ 22.

4

See Docket No. 19-1 at Ex. B.

Case 3:16-cv-00084-JCS Document 45 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 5:16-cv-00084-PSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

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

that Wells Fargo reviewed and denied both Plaintiffs’ loan modification application and also 

Plaintiffs’ appeal from that denial. 

At a hearing today, Plaintiffs did not deny receiving the letters, but argued that the letters

are insufficient because they do not comply with the content requirements for a “final written 

determination.” Plaintiffs did not allege that in their first amended complaint, however. Because 

the letters show that the Plaintiffs were notified in writing of their ineligibility for a loan 

modification, Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, with leave to amend. Any amended 

complaint shall be filed within 30 days.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

5

Plaintiffs initially opposed Wells Fargo’s request for judicial notice of the letters, but agreed at 

oral argument that the court could consider them. See Docket Nos. 32, 44.

Case 3:16-cv-00084-JCS Document 45 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2