Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00601/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00601-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark G. Mangosing, Sr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0601-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant Wells Fargo Bank’s motion to dismiss (doc. 4),

plaintiff’s response (doc. 11), and defendant’s reply (doc. 13).

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendants have an obligation under the

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (“EESA”) to renegotiate his mortgage. Among other

things, plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to negotiate with plaintiff and to

prohibit any foreclosure proceeding until negotiation has occurred. Defendant contends that

the EESA has no application to this case. While the Act addresses “federal property

managers” it does not apply to financial institutions. 12 U.S.C. § 5220(a). Moreover, there

is no private right of action under the EESA. 

Plaintiff concedes that the EESA does not impose an obligation on the financial

institutions to renegotiate his mortgage. Response at 1-2. Instead, he states that he is simply

Case 2:09-cv-00601-FJM Document 16 Filed 05/22/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

asking the mortgage companies to “take twenty or thirty minutes to talk to him to see if

something could be worked out.” Id. at 2. While we appreciate the challenges that plaintiff

and many other similarly situated individuals face in this difficult economy, this lawsuit is

not an appropriate avenue to resolve this problem. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted and therefore it is dismissed in its entirety. Given the

nature of this case, defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is denied. 

We note that plaintiff’s pleadings and papers in this case bear the name of a legal

document preparer under the Arizona Code of Administration, § 7-208, et seq. However, the

practice of law in federal court is governed by LRCiv 83.1, which does not permit filings by

anyone other than lawyers and pro se individuals. We hereby advise Rae Heimer, legal

document preparer, that she may not prepare documents for filing in this court. Any further

filings will result in a reference under CJA § 7-201(H) and monetary sanctions here. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 4).

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00601-FJM Document 16 Filed 05/22/09 Page 2 of 2