Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04623/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04623-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY P. DIZON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO, N.A., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-4623-SC 

ORDER ADOPTING 

RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT, AND REFERRING 

DISCIPLINARY MATTER TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Now pending before the undersigned is Magistrate Judge 

Nathanael Cousins's Recommendation to dismiss the Complaint of 

Plaintiff Jerry P. Dizon ("Plaintiff"). ECF No. 13 ("Rec."). 

Judge Cousins issued his Recommendation on November 26, 2012, and 

thus the time for objections to the Recommendation lapsed on 

December 10, 2012. Id. at 9; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civ. L.R. 72-

3. Further, when Judge Cousins issued the Recommendation, he 

expressed concern over the lack of diligence evinced by Plaintiff's 

counsel, Mandip Purewal of the National Consumer Law Group, and 

ordered Mr. Purewal to "provide a copy of this Order to [Plaintiff] 

and e-file a declaration stating that he has complied with this 

Order." Rec. at 8. The December 10 deadline has passed and the 

Court has received neither an objection to the Recommendation nor 

the required declaration of compliance. 
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

For the Northern District of California 

The Court turns first to the Recommendation of dismissal. 

Having reviewed Judge Cousins's Recommendation and found it to be 

thorough, well-reasoned, and correct, the Court ADOPTS the 

Recommendation as its Order. Defendant Wells Fargo, N.A.'s request 

for judicial notice and its unopposed motion to dismiss are both 

GRANTED. ECF Nos. 6, 7. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED as 

follows: 

• Claim 1 (breach of contract) is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. 

• Claim 2 (fraud) is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

• Claim 3 (negligence) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

• Claim 4 (intentional tort) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

• Claim 5 (failure to modify loan under the California 

Foreclosure Prevention Act) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

• Claim 6 (declaratory and injunctive relief) is DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

Plaintiff has LEAVE to file an amended complaint, consistent 

with this Order and the guidance contained in Judge Cousins's 

Recommendation, within thirty (30) days of the signature date of 

this Order. Failure to do so will result in final dismissal of 

this case. 

Turning to the lack of diligence displayed by Mr. Purewal, the 

undersigned shares Judge Cousins's concerns. The Court recently 

dismissed another mortgage foreclosure case brought, but neglected, 

by Mr. Purewal. See Barrientos v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 12-4653-SC, 

2012 WL 5914514 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012). The Court REFERS to 

Judge Cousins the issue of whether to sanction or otherwise 

discipline Mr. Purewal for noncompliance with the Order requiring 
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

For the Northern District of California 

Mr. Purewal to provide a copy of the Recommendation to his client 

and to e-file a declaration of compliance on or before December 10, 

2012. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Civ. L.R. 72-1; see also Civ. L.R. 11-

6(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 11, 2012 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE