Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05881/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05881-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER (No. 3:14-cv-005881-LB) 

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 

San Francisco Division 

MANOJ RIJHWANI, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:13-cv-05881-LB 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER 

[Re: ECF No. 66] 

The court held a pretrial conference on September 3, 2015, and issues this final pretrial order 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e). The parties’ joint proposed pretrial order is 

adopted except as modified by this order. 

I. TRIAL DATE AND LENGTH OF TRIAL 

A. The jury trial will begin on Monday, September 28, 2015, in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, 

U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The trial will last 5 days. 

The trial will be held Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., with two ten-minute 

breaks. Counsel must arrive at 8:15 a.m. to address any issues (such as objections) before the trial 

day begins. The first day may run a full day, and counsel must arrive by 9 a.m. (and may come 

earlier to set up). The court will hold the charging conference at the end of the trial day on 

Wednesday, September 30, 2015. 

B. Each side has 10 hours to present the direct examination of its witnesses and to crossCase 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 87 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 6
2 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-05881-LB) 

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 

examine the opposing party’s witnesses, including all objections raised during the trial day. In 

addition, the parties each may make opening statements of up to 45 minutes. 

II. PROCEDURE FOR EXHIBITS DURING TRIAL 

Please refer to the court’s July 28, 2015 Pretrial Order for the proper procedures regarding the 

presentation of exhibits during trial. (See ECF No. 65.) 

III. PROCEDURE FOR WITNESSES DURING TRIAL 

Please refer to the court’s July 28, 2015 Pretrial Order for the proper procedures regarding the 

presentation of witness testimony and deposition excerpts during trial. (See ECF No. 65.) 

IV. CLAIMS REMAINING 

The court granted summary judgment on all claims except for the following: (1) negligence 

and (2) promissory estoppel. (See Summary-Judgment Order, ECF No. 58.) The negligence claim 

will be tried to the jury. The promissory estoppel claim will be tried to the court. 

A. HOLA Preemption 

Wells Fargo asserts HOLA preemption as a defense in its trial brief. (Wells Fargo’s Trial 

Brief, ECF No. 78 at 9-13.) The court held previously that the plaintiffs’ claims are not preempted 

by the Home Owners’ Loan Act (“HOLA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq. (3/3/14 Order, ECF No. 17 

at 9-13.) The cases generally apply HOLA preemption only to conduct occurring before the loan 

changed hands from an entity governed by HOLA to one that is not. (See id. at 11.) Here, the first 

default happened in 2011, well after World Savings/Wachovia ceased being a federal savings bank 

and merged (ultimately) into Well Fargo Bank in November 2009. (Id. at 3.) The court previously 

declined to conclude that preemption attaches to the loan and instead followed the weight of 

authority to conclude that HOLA does not govern Wells Fargo’s own conduct after the merger. 

(Id.) It thus concluded that Wells Fargo, which is not a federal savings association or bank, may 

not assert HOLA preemption in this case. (See id. at 12.) 

In support of its renewed argument that HOLA attaches to the loan and allows it to assert 

HOLA preemption as a defense, Wells Fargo points to opinions by the Federal Home Loan Bank 

Board and its successor the Office of Thrift Supervision that (it contends) reach that conclusion. 

(Wells Fargo’s Trial Brief, ECF NO. 78 at 9-11.) It asserts too that the plaintiffs agreed to have the 

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 87 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 6
3 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-05881-LB) 

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 

loan covered by HOLA because (1) the Note and Deed of Trust for the original loan in 2000 have 

a clause that the security instruments and secured notes are governed by federal law “including 

those for federally chartered savings institutions” and (2) the plaintiffs agreed that the lender’s 

rights survive a merger and attach to someone who takes over the lender’s rights. (Id. at 12-13.) It 

collects recent cases primarily from the Central District. (Id. at 13.) Courts in this district have 

addressed Wells Fargo’s new arguments and rejected them. See, e.g., Pimental v. Wells Fargo, 

NA, No. 14-cv-05004-EDL, 2015 WL 2184305, at *3-*5 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2015); Hixson v. 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. C 14-285 SI, 2014 WL 3870004, at *2-*5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014). 

The court follows those opinions and reaffirms its prior opinion that HOLA preemption does not 

apply to this case. 

B. Negligence 

The elements of a negligence claim are (1) a duty of care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) 

proximate cause, and (4) damages. (Proposed Joint Pretrial Order, ECF NO. 66 at 2.) The duty of 

care here is Wells Fargo’s duty to submit the plaintiffs’ loan-modification application and to not 

foreclose on their property while considering it. (Summary-Judgment Order, ECF No. 58 at 34-

35.) 

C. Promissory Estoppel

The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are (1) a clear promise by the promisor, (2) 

reasonable and foreseeable reliance on the promise by the promisee, (3) injury (meaning, 

substantial detriment as injury to the promisee), and (4) damages. (Proposed Joint Pretrial Order, 

ECF NO. 66 at 3; Summary-Judgment Order, ECF No. 58 at 29.) The promissory-estoppel claim 

also is based on Wells Fargo’s alleged promise (through its representative Juan Teran) to submit 

the plaintiffs’ loan-modification application and to not foreclose on their property while 

considering it. (Summary-Judgment Order, ECF No. 58 at 29.) 

V. WELLS FARGO’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (“MIL”) 

For the reasons stated on the record and below, the court rules as follows: 

1. MIL 1 to Exclude Evidence of Undisclosed Damages (ECF No. 69) 

The issue here is whether the plaintiffs disclosed a “computation of each category of 

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 87 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 6
4 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-05881-LB) 

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 

damages.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Failure to do so means that the party cannot use the 

information at trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. Fed. R. Civ. 37(c)(1). 

Generally a party is not required to produce information already in the possession of the opposing 

party. Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. before Trial ¶ 11:283 

(The Rutter Group 2015). 

The plaintiffs claim loss of equity, interest, late charges of $10,000, $5,000 in repairs and 

improvements, $5,000 for a homeowner’s association assessment, $26,000 in relocation expenses, 

and damage to their credit. (MIL 1, ECF No. 69 at 5.) Wells Fargo points out that the plaintiffs 

provide no information about loss of equity and no calculation or support for their other damages. 

(Id. at 4-5.) The plaintiffs respond that they talked about damages during their depositions, they 

submitted documents and discovery responses with approximate numbers for their damages, and 

Wells Fargo never objected previously to their responses as being inexact. (Opposition, ECF No. 

69 at 43-44.) The plaintiffs affirmed at the pretrial hearing that they were not deviating from their 

approximations. 

For the reasons stated at the hearing, the court denies the motion. Wells Fargo may have good 

arguments about whether the damages are sufficient to establish (for example) reliance damages, 

but its motion does not present grounds to exclude the evidence. 

2. MIL 2 to Exclude Testimony Regarding Promise to Modify Loan (ECF No. 70) 

The motion here is based on the court’s ruling that the plaintiffs’ promissory-estoppel claim 

fails to the extent that it is based on Wells Fargo’s promise to give them a loan modification and 

survives only to the extent that it is based on Wells Fargo’s promise ̶ through its representative 

Mr. Teran ̶ to submit the loan modification application, consider it, and not foreclose on the 

property while it was considering it. (MIL 2, ECF No. 70 at 3.) Wells Fargo thus moves to exclude 

any testimony about the promise to give the plaintiffs a loan modification. (Id.) The plaintiffs 

respond that they do not intend to introduce evidence regarding the alleged promise to modify. 

(Opposition, ECF NO. 70 at 7, 9.) The court grants the motion. 

3. MIL 3 to Exclude Testimony Re Fees and Costs Incurred by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 71) 

The court grants the motion. 

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 87 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 6
5 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-05881-LB) 

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 

4. MIL 4 to Exclude Evidence Not Previously Produced in Discovery (ECF No. 72) 

MIL 5 Exclude Witnesses Not Disclosed by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 73) 

The parties have designated their witnesses and exhibits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The 

court grants the motion except for evidence presented solely for impeachment purposes. Id.

VI. WITNESSES AND DEPOSITIONS 

The parties may call the witnesses listed in their witness lists. Given the lack of subpoenas, 

and for the reasons given on the record, the court will allow the plaintiffs to designate deposition 

excerpts. The parties must follow the procedures described at the conference (designation by 

September 10, response by September 16 at 10 a.m., and submission to the court no later than 

September 18, 2015 at noon). 

VII. EXHIBITS AND STIPULATIONS 

The parties submitted joint exhibits. As discussed at the hearing, the court’s pretrial order was 

meant to flush out objections two weeks before the pretrial conference so that the court could rule 

on objections and pre-admit as much evidence as possible. This results in an orderly trial. At the 

hearing, it became apparent that it was not obvious to the parties that the court’s time line in its 

pretrial order was intended to replace the time line in Rule 26. The court thus will address the 

parties’ evidence disputes at a second pretrial conference on September 24, 2015 at 11 a.m. The 

parties must confer about their exhibits to eliminate unnecessary exhibits and reduce the number 

of disputes (to the extent possible). An updated exhibit list and Wells Fargo’s revised objections 

are due on September 17, 2015. 

The parties also identify undisputed facts in their proposed pretrial conference statement. The 

court asks the parties to confer about the undisputed facts identified in their proposed pretrial order 

to reach any signed stipulations in a form that can be introduced as evidence at trial. Any 

stipulations must be submitted by September 17, 2015. 

VIII. QUESTIONNAIRES 

The court will use the juror questionnaire that is attached to the court’s July 28, 2015 Pretrial 

Order. (See ECF No. 65.) The parties will submit a joint questionnaire that includes the court’s 

questionnaire (or any modifications to it) by September 10, 2015. If the parties want a Word 

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 87 Filed 09/04/15 Page 5 of 6
6 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-05881-LB) 

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 

version of the court’s questionnaire, they may email the court at lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. 

IX. TRIAL 

At the end of each trial day (generally, by 2:00 p.m.), counsel must give notice of the order of 

proof (meaning, the order of witnesses and the exhibits, including illustrative exhibits) for the next 

trial day. The parties must notify the court by the end of the day of any objections to the exhibits, 

and the court will schedule a conference that afternoon or the following morning to resolve the 

dispute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 4, 2015 ______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 87 Filed 09/04/15 Page 6 of 6