Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04798/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04798-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1640 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSVALDINA LIMA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C09-04798 TEH

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING RE DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

FEES

This matter is before the Court on the motion for attorneys’ fees filed by Defendant

Wachovia Mortgage FSB (“Wachovia”). Wachovia asserts that it is entitled to attorneys’

fees as the prevailing party in this action pursuant to provisions of the promissory note and

deed of trust entered into by Plaintiff Osvaldina Lima (“Lima”). Wachovia argues that state

law governs a party’s right to attorneys’ fees for state law claims, MRO Commc’ns, Inc. v.

AT&T Co., 197 F.3d 1276, 1280-82 (9th Cir. 1999), and that California law allows for the

award of attorneys’ fees where authorized by contract, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1021 &

1033.5(a)(10).

However, Lima’s complaint asserted violations of two federal statutes: the Truth in

Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1635, 1640, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures

Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2603. Jurisdiction was premised on the existence of a federal

question, and no claims were asserted under state law. The basis for Wachovia’s assertion

that state law governs this motion is therefore unclear. If state law is inapplicable, Wachovia

has provided no federal authority that would justify the attorneys’ fee award it requests on

this motion.

The Court therefore VACATES the hearing that had been set for May 3, 2010, and

requests supplemental briefing on this issue. No later than May 3, 2010, Wachovia shall file

Case 3:09-cv-04798-TEH Document 42 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

a brief not to exceed seven pages explaining the basis for its contention that California law

governs this motion. If Wachovia concedes that California law is inapplicable, the

supplemental brief shall set out the appropriate standard under federal law, and apply that

standard to the instant motion. Lima shall file a response to Wachovia’s supplemental brief,

not to exceed seven pages, by May 10, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/26/10 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-04798-TEH Document 42 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 2