Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04276/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04276-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

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

YOUSIF HASSAN HALLOUM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-04276-EMC 

ORDER STAYING ACTION; AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Docket Nos. 9, 19

Pro se Plaintiffs Yousif Halloum and Iman Halloum bring this suit against Defendants 

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (“Wells Fargo”), Fannie Mae, Caliber Home Loans (“Caliber”), and 

Trra West Management Services (“Terra West”). Plaintiffs assert ten causes of action: (1) 

violation of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, (2) breach of contract, (3) fraudulent 

inducement, (4) fraud, (5) embezzlement, (6) false pretenses, (7) negligent misrepresentation, (8) 

duress, (9) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (10) fraudulent and deceptive business 

practice. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that the Defendants acted unlawfully in 

servicing Plaintiffs’ loans and in seeking to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ property, by charging interest, 

fees, and expenses while Plaintiffs were in bankruptcy proceedings, and by failing to apply trial 

payments made by Plaintiffs pursuant to a loan modification agreement to the principal balance of 

their loan. Pending before the Court is a motion dismiss filed by Wells Fargo, Fannie Mae, and 

Caliber (collectively “Defendants”). 

Plaintiffs’ complaint here is near-identical to one they have already filed in a pending 

adversarial action in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada.1 The first-to-file rule 

 

1 The Bankruptcy Court dismissed that complaint in July 2018 but granted Plaintiffs leave to 

amend most of their claims. Plaintiffs have yet to file an amended complaint. 

Case 3:18-cv-04276-EMC Document 48 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 3
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

“allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already 

been filed in another federal court.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prod., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th 

Cir. 1991). The purpose of the rule “is to promote efficiency and to avoid duplicative litigation.” 

Inherent.com v. Martindale-Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing 

Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625). A district court examines three factors in deciding whether to apply 

the rule: (1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the identity of the parties involved; and (3) the 

similarity of the issues at stake. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625.

Assessing those three factors, it is clear that the first-to-file rule applies here. First, the 

Nevada bankruptcy action was filed on March 2, 2018, months before this action was filed on July 

16, 2018. Second, the parties involved in the two cases are identical. Third, the two actions 

concern the same issues. Plaintiffs assert the same ten causes of action in the Nevada bankruptcy 

action as in this case, and the allegations supporting each cause of action and the relief sought in 

the two complaints are identical. 

Where the first-to-file rule applies, a court has discretion to “stay, transfer, or dismiss” the 

later-filed action. Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 623. Courts have explained that the court of second filing 

should consider a stay in lieu of dismissal if the court of first filing may be “preparing to transfer 

its matter to the court of second filing.” Intersearch Worldwide, Ltd. v. Intersearch Grp., Inc., 544 

F. Supp. 2d 949, 963 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Plaintiffs stated at the hearing that they had already filed 

in the Nevada Bankruptcy Court a motion to transfer their case to this District. Accordingly, this 

Court will STAY the instant proceedings pending the Bankruptcy Court’s resolution of Plaintiffs’ 

motion to transfer and/or the merits of their claims.

The Court further DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. See Docket No. 19. That motion 

argues that Wells Fargo failed to file its motion to dismiss within 21 days from the date of service 

of the complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). But Wells Fargo filed its 

motion to dismiss on September 7, 2018, exactly 21 days after it was served with the complaint on 

August 17, 2018. See Docket No. 19, Exh. B (proof of service). Plaintiffs assert that they had 

first attempted to serve Wells Fargo’s current counsel on August 13, 2018, but that counsel 

refused to accept service. See id., Exh. A. However, at that point counsel was not authorized to 

Case 3:18-cv-04276-EMC Document 48 Filed 11/16/18 Page 2 of 3
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

accept service on behalf of Wells Fargo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Although counsel was 

representing Wells Fargo in the Nevada bankruptcy proceedings, it had not yet been appointed in 

the newly-filed action in this Court. Accordingly, counsel properly directed the process server to 

serve Wells Fargo’s registered agent pursuant to Rule 4(h). See No. 19, Exh. A.

This order disposes of Docket No. 19.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2018

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04276-EMC Document 48 Filed 11/16/18 Page 3 of 3