Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00712/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00712-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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

CARMEN CRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-00712-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 55

Plaintiff Carmen Crump alleges a single claim against defendant Wells Fargo Bank for a 

violation of California Civil Code Section 2923.6. Dkt. No. 52 (Second Amended Complaint). 

That code section prohibits a mortgage servicer from recording a notice of default or notice of 

sale, or from conducting a trustee’s sale, while the borrower’s complete loan modification 

application is pending. Crump claims that she “submitted a complete loan modification 

application to defendant on or around December 20, 2017 and has not yet received a determination 

on her application.” Dkt. No. 52 at 4 ¶ 10. She seeks an injunction under California Civil Code 

Section 2924.12(a), to stop defendant who allegedly “intends to sell plaintiff’s home at foreclosure 

on March 14, 2018 [sic].” Id. at 3 ¶ 4.

A joint stipulation filed in this case shows that Crump submitted a complete loan 

modification application in September 2018. Dkt. No. 43 at 1. Crump has represented to the 

Court that Wells Fargo sent her a letter on September 14, 2018, informing her of their decision on 

the application, and that she appealed that decision on October 19, 2018. Id. She further averred 

that on October 25, 2018, “Wells Fargo sent plaintiff a letter stating that Wells Fargo reviewed 

plaintiff’s appeal and that plaintiff still did not meet the requirements for a loan modification.” Id. 

at 2.

Case 3:18-cv-00712-JD Document 60 Filed 08/13/19 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

These representations make clear that plaintiff cannot state a claim against Wells Fargo 

under California Civil Code Section 2923.6 on the basis of any open loan modification application

dating from December 2017. Her claim of a “material change in her financial circumstances” in 

December 2017, Dkt. No. 52 at 3 ¶ 2, is of no moment because such a change would have

preceded the complete loan modification application she concedes she submitted in September 

2018, and as to which Wells Fargo indisputably issued multiple written decisions in September 

and October 2018. 

Consequently, Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted.1 While the Court ordinarily grants leave to amend liberally, it 

need not do so when amendment would be futile and plaintiff has already had multiple 

opportunities to amend her complaint. See Chodos v. West Publishing Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 

(9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its 

discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is ‘particularly broad.’”); Bonin v. Calderon, 

59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a 

motion for leave to amend.”). Both apply to this case, and any further opportunity to amend is 

denied. 

Judgment will be entered for Wells Fargo and the case will be closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

 

1 The Court finds the motion suitable for decision without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

Case 3:18-cv-00712-JD Document 60 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2