Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02000/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02000-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332fc Diversity - 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDY M. PLEGER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15cv2000-LAB (JLB)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

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

Defendants.

On September 16, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moved to dismiss the second

amended complaint with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Along with the notice of

motion, Wells Fargo filed proof of service showing that Plaintiff Judy Pleger's counsel of

record had been served with a copy of the motion. 

The notice of motion gave the hearing date as Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:15

a.m. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), the opposition was due two weeks before that date,

i.e., Monday, October 26. But Pleger's counsel has not filed any opposition, nor sought an

extension of time to do so, nor filed anything else at all. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c),

failure to file an opposition when due may constitute consent to the motion's being granted.

Jurisdiction

Before reaching the merits, the Court must confirm its own jurisdiction. See Steel Co.

v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). Wells Fargo invoked

diversity jurisdiction, even though its co-defendant, Cal-Western Reconveyance LLC, N.A.,

- 1 - 15cv2000

Case 3:15-cv-02000-LAB-JLB Document 5 Filed 11/10/15 Page 1 of 3
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

was not diverse. It argued that Cal-Western was a nominal Defendant only, and that as such,

its citizenship could be ignored when determining diversity. See Navarro Sav. Ass'n v. Lee,

446 U.S. 458, 461 (1980) (holding that the citizenship of nominal or formal parties is to be

disregarded when determining diversity jurisdiction).

Although Cal-Western is named as a Defendant to all claims, no allegations are made

against it that would give rise to any claims. Cal-Western's only alleged role in the dispute

was as trustee under a deed of trust, and its only specific action giving rise to Pleger's claims

was that its agent recorded a notice of default and notice of trustee's sale (Compl., ¶¶ 17–18,

20.) Pleger's claims arise primarily under the California Homeowners Bill of Rights. But the

sections referenced create communication requirements by the loan servicer. In fact, §

2924(b) says that a trustee cannot be liable for any good faith reliance on the information

provided to it. There are no facts alleging error in the recording, error in the loan amount in

the note administered by Cal-Western, or any actions by Cal-Western in violation of the

causes of actions raised. The remainder of the allegations, though often referring to

Defendants generally, do not appear to apply to Cal-Western. 

The Court therefore concludes that Cal-Western is a nominal Defendant only, and that

its citizenship should be disregarded. With that decided, the parties are diverse and the Court

can exercise jurisdiction over this action.

Effect of Failure to File Opposition

Before dismissing, the Court considers the factors set forth in Ghazli v. Moran, 46 F.3d

52, 53 (1995). In view of Pleger's apparent lack of interest in pursuing her claims, the factors

are all either neutral or weigh against her. This case is not particularly old; nevertheless, the

public has an interest in seeing it resolved. At issue here is residential property whose title

is clouded. Public policy disfavors allowing such clouds to linger needlessly. See Slintak v.

Buckeye Retirement Co., LLC, Ltd., 139 Cal. App. 4th 575, 584, 587 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2006)

(holding that allowing a notice of lis pendens to cloud a title indefinitely would impede the

purposes of California's Marketable Record Title Act, which was intended to make property

more freely marketable).

- 2 - 15cv2000

Case 3:15-cv-02000-LAB-JLB Document 5 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Similarly, the Court's need to manage its docket weighs in favor of dismissal. There

is no reason to allow this case to linger on the docket, and the Court can do little to move it

along if Pleger herself is uninterested in litigating it. 

For reasons pointed out in the motion to dismiss, it appears Pleger has a weak case.

Her chief claim is that she was denied a loan modification. But no law, state or federal,

entitles her to one. It may be that she has or can plead a viable claim, but if so it is not clear

what it is. It therefore appears the risk of prejudice to Pleger is minimal. 

The public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits generally disfavors

dismissal for failure to comply with briefing requirements. But here, there is no indication that

Pleger is trying to comply, or even still wants to pursue her claims. Finally, it does not appear

there are any less drastic options open to the Court, other than possibly giving Pleger more

time to oppose the motion. But because she has not asked for it, it does not appear this

would make any real difference. These factors are either neutral or weigh in favor of

dismissal.

Weighing the five factors, the Court finds dismissal is appropriate.

Conclusion and Order

For these reasons, Wells Fargo's unopposed motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this

action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 15cv2000

Case 3:15-cv-02000-LAB-JLB Document 5 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 3