Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01691/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01691-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

PURNIMA JHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01691-VC 

REQUEST FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

There is a colorable argument that the plaintiff has a valid claim for breach of the deed of 

trust. The deed incorporates "applicable law," which includes federal regulations. The plaintiff 

has argued that under applicable federal regulations the defendant was required to refrain from a 

foreclosure sale for 30 days while it considered a potential modification, and that the defendant 

proceeded with the sale before the applicable 30-day period expired. The defendant has 

responded, among other things, that the language of the deed incorporating applicable law should 

be interpreted to mean that the deed incorporates only law that existed at the time the parties 

entered into the contract, not law that was created afterwards.

The problem is that the plaintiff has not identified the alleged regulation that required the 

defendant to refrain from a foreclosure sale for 30 days, while the defendant has not identified 

authority for the proposition that contract language incorporating applicable law should be 

interpreted as limited to the law that existed at the time the parties entered into the contract. 

Accordingly, the parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed five pages,

addressing these questions. The plaintiff's supplemental brief is due April 29, 2015. The 

defendant's response brief is due May 1, 2015. Also on May 1, 2015, the parties must file a joint 

statement of undisputed facts relating to the summary judgment motion on the breach of contract 

claim. 

Case 3:14-cv-01691-VC Document 65 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 2
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01691-VC Document 65 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 2