Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04896/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04896-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
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

MARIALUZ A. BANARES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04896-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 30

Marialuz Banares has sued Wells Fargo and HSBC as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset 

Securities Corportation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-8, alleging that the 

defendants have unlawfully initiated foreclosure proceedings against her. The defendants 

previously filed a motion to dismiss Banares' initial complaint, which Judge Chen granted, with 

leave to amend. In his order, Judge Chen stated, "Plaintiff is cautioned that any amendment must 

account for the Court's ruling herein and be made in good faith in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 

11." Dkt. No. 17. The First Amended Complaint is virtually identical to the original complaint and 

only differs in two respects.

First, Banares has added the allegation that the defendants are wrongfully foreclosing on 

her property because neither of the defendants is a "person entitled to enforce the note" under

several provisions of the California Commercial Code. But the California Commercial Code is not 

applicable to nonjudicial foreclosures in California. Rather, nonjudicial foreclosure are 

exhaustively governed by California Civil Code § 2924 et. seq. See Debrunner v. Deutsche Nat. 

Trust Co., 204 Cal.App.4th 433, 440 (2012). 

Second, Banares has added more to her claim that Wells Fargo violated RESPA, 12. 

U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., by not responding to what Banares alleges was a "Qualified Written 

Request" seeking details about the servicing of her loan. In Judge Chen's prior order, he found that 

Case 3:13-cv-04896-VC Document 41 Filed 02/04/15 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

"[p]laintiff has plausibly alleged that the letter was a QWR," but that she failed "to allege how 

Wells Fargo's failure to respond resulted in damages." To state a claim for a RESPA violation, 

Banares must show that Wells Fargo's failure to respond caused her actual harm. See, e.g., 

Tamburri v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1014-15 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Dang v. 

Residential Credit Solutions, Inc., No. C-14-02587-RMW, 2014 WL 5513753, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 31, 2014). In her FAC, Banares adds more detail, claiming she suffered a reduction in credit 

and will need to retain an attorney and a loan auditor to determine if Wells Fargo had the authority 

to collect her mortgage payments. But all of her alleged damages are related to her overall theory 

of wrongful foreclosure, namely, that the various assignments of her loan were ineffective and that 

neither Wells Fargo nor HSBC had the authority to foreclose. Because the Court has dismissed 

Banares' wrongful foreclose theory, and because Banares does not allege separate and independent 

damages that stem directly from Wells Fargo's failure to respond to her questions about the 

servicing of her loan, Banares' RESPA claim is dismissed. 

For these reasons, and for all the reasons identified in Judge Chen's prior order, the case is 

dismissed. And because Banares has been given a chance to amend and yet filed a virtually 

identical complaint, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2015

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04896-VC Document 41 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 2