Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00758/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00758-3/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT WADE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF 

COMPTROLLER & CURRENCY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-758 KJM AC 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo”) August 

16, 2013 motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.1

 The court has determined that the 

matter shall be submitted upon the record and briefs on file and accordingly, the date for hearing 

shall be vacated. E.D. Cal. R. 78-230. On review of the motion and documents filed in support 

and opposition, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Allegations 

 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is six pages long and fails to state any specific 

allegations as to defendant Wells Fargo, though plaintiff does accuse Wells Fargo of conducting 

 

1

 Defendant Office of the Comptroller & Currency was dismissed from this case on August 30, 

2013 following the submission of a stipulation of dismissal. See ECF Nos. 31-32. 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 37 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 4
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

“business as usual under the old ways” and of “disregard[ing] regulations.” First Am. Compl. 

(“FAC”) 5. 

 Attached to the FAC are over 300 pages of exhibits. While the court declines to wade 

through the hundreds of pages in search of facts that would support a claim, the court does take 

note of plaintiff’s declaration attached to the FAC, in which he states that he sought a loan 

modification in April 2010 from defendant. FAC, Ex. 2-P, ECF No. 24 at 16-17. During the loan 

modification process, plaintiff received a notice of default in February 2011. Id. Subsequently, 

and in an attempt to save his home from foreclosure, plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and 

received a discharge of debtor on December 15, 2011. Id. 

 On review of the documents submitted by defendant with its request for judicial notice2, it 

appears plaintiff obtained a home loan in the amount of $477,300.00 from World Savings Bank, 

FSB (“World Savings”) on August 15, 2006. Req. Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A. The loan was 

secured by a deed of trust (“DOT”) recorded against real property located at 14818 Grassland 

Rd., Lodi, California (“the Subject Property”). Id. At the time, World Savings was a federal 

savings bank. RJN, Ex. B. On December 31, 2007, it was renamed Wachovia Mortgage, which 

later merged with and into Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. RJN, Exs. C-D. 

 Plaintiff defaulted on his loan and a notice of default was recorded on August 20, 2010. 

RJN, Ex. E. When the default was not cured, a notice of sale was recorded on February 1, 2011. 

RJN, Ex. F. 

B. Procedural History 

 Plaintiff filed suit in this court on April 19, 2013 and is proceeding on a first amended 

complaint filed July 31, 2013. Plaintiff’s original pleading was dismissed with leave to amend on 

grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

 On August 16, 2013, defendant Wells Fargo filed the instant motion to dismiss, again for 

failure to state a claim. On September 11, 2013, plaintiff submitted a filing entitled “Entering 

Additional Evidence to Preponderance of Evidence Rule,” which the court construes as an 

 

2

 The court takes judicial notice of those documents referenced herein. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Lee 

v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 37 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

opposition to defendant’s motion. Defendant’s Reply brief suggests that plaintiff did prepare and 

serve an opposition dated August 30, 2013. See Def.’s Reply 1. The docket however does not 

reflect the filing of an opposition with the court. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

 The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 

is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 

578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the 

absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege “enough facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007). Thus, a defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the court’s ability to grant any relief 

on the plaintiff’s claims, even if the plaintiff’s allegations are true. 

 In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the 

court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. 

United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 The court may consider facts established by exhibits attached to the complaint. Durning 

v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). The court may also consider facts 

which may be judicially noticed, Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 

(9th Cir. 1987), and matters of public record, including pleadings, orders, and other papers filed 

with the court, Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). The 

court need not accept legal conclusions “cast in the form of factual allegations.” Western Mining 

Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 

DISCUSSION 

 The court finds, as it did on review of plaintiff’s original pleading, that plaintiff fails to 

provide sufficient facts that, accepted as true, would state a claim for relief. While Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations in a pleading, it does require 

more than unadorned “the defendant unlawfully harmed me” accusations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 37 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The FAC in this case falls well below Rule 8’s standards. While plaintiff’s 

September 11, 2013 filing refers to his dissatisfaction with a non-judicial foreclosure of the 

Subject Property and with defendant’s involvement in plaintiff’s bankruptcy action, plaintiff’s 

claims do not provide more than “the defendant unlawfully harmed me” accusations. See id. 

Furthermore, while plaintiff cites to numerous statutes, these citations, without more, do not alert 

either this court or the defendant to the precise wrongful conduct that has aggrieved plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff will be granted one final attempt to amend his pleading. Plaintiff is warned that 

the second amended complaint must include all allegations in the text of the pleading. The court 

will not cobble together a claim from the exhibits where no claim is actually pled. Furthermore, 

mere citation to statutes is insufficient to either state a claim or to satisfy the federal jurisdictional 

requirement. Finally, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a 

deprivation of plaintiff’s federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The September 25, 2013 hearing on defendant’s motions to dismiss is vacated; 

2. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted; 

3. Defendant’s August 16, 2013 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) is granted; 

4. Plaintiff’s FAC is dismissed3; and 

5. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days from 

the date of this order. 

DATED: September 19, 2013 

 

/mb/wade0758.mtd2

 

3

 Because the granting of a motion to dismiss with leave to amend is not dispositive of the action, 

the undersigned issues an order in lieu of a Findings and Recommendations. 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 37 Filed 09/20/13 Page 4 of 4