Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02477/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02477-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

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

CYNTHIA D. PERDUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02477-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 54

In this case, Plaintiff Cynthia Perdum alleges that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by misappropriating funds provided by the United States 

under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), and by improperly denying her a 

loan modification for a mortgage under the HAMP program. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim, Dkt. No. 37, and Judge James Donato, to whom this case was previously 

assigned, granted the motion without prejudice on January 5, 2015, Dkt. No. 53. In his order, 

Judge Donato expressly stated that Perdum would be provided “one last opportunity” to file an 

amended complaint by January 12, 2015 or else the case would be dismissed with prejudice.” Id. 

at 4. 

Rather than amend her complaint by the deadline ordered by Judge Donato, Perdum 

instead filed a motion to dismiss her complaint without prejudice. Dkt. No. 54. In that motion, 

Perdum conceded that she could not plead a cause of action under the FCA, but sought dismissal 

without prejudice so that she could bring a claim under the Financial Institutions Reform, 

Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) at a future date. Id. Perdum represented that her 

failure to bring a FIRREA claim in the first place was caused by the ineffective assistance of her 

counsel. Id. at 4. Wells Fargo opposes Perdum’s motion, arguing that this action should be 

dismissed with prejudice because (1) Perdum failed to comply with Judge Donato’s order; and (2) 

Case 4:14-cv-02477-HSG Document 64 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 3
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

any FIRREA claim brought by Perdum would be futile because only the United States has 

standing to pursue claims under that statute. Dkt. No. 56 at 1-2.

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows a plaintiff, pursuant to an order of the 

court, and subject to any terms and conditions the court deems proper, to dismiss an action without 

prejudice at any time.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996). 

“The purpose of the rule is to permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action without prejudice so long as 

the defendant will not be prejudiced . . . or unfairly affected by dismissal.” Stevedoring Servs. of 

Am. v. Armilla Int’l, B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). When 

determining prejudice, a district court may consider such factors as the stage of litigation and the 

moving party’s delay in requesting voluntary dismissal, as well as indications of forum shopping. 

See Cent. Mont. Rail v. BNSF Ry. Co., 422 F. App’x 636, 638 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Westlands 

Water Dist., 100 F.3d at 96; Kern Oil & Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 792 F.2d 1380, 1389-90 

(9th Cir. 1986)). 

In this case, the Court finds that granting Perdum’s motion would result in legal prejudice

to Wells Fargo. This is not a case where “a dispute remains unresolved” or where there is simply 

a “threat of future litigation,” as have been found insufficient grounds for legal prejudice in other 

cases. See, e.g., Westlands Water Dist., 100 F.3d at 96-97. To the contrary, the dispute between 

the parties has been resolved. Judge Donato considered Perdum’s FCA claim when deciding 

Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, provided leave to amend, and expressly stated that the action 

would be dismissed with prejudice absent the filing of an amended complaint by January 12, 2015. 

Dkt. No. 53. Perdum did not comply with Judge Donato’s order. In other words, dismissal 

without prejudice would not merely threaten Wells Fargo with future litigation: it would expose 

Wells Fargo to potential re-litigation of issues already decided by this Court. Accordingly, 

Perdum’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this action is DENIED.

Nevertheless, the Court will exercise its discretion to permit Perdum the opportunity to file 

an amended complaint under FIRREA, to the extent that she can plead a cause of action consistent 

with the requirements of Rule 11. The amended complaint may not assert any other new claims or 

add any new defendants. Perdum must file the amended complaint by no later than 30 days from 

Case 4:14-cv-02477-HSG Document 64 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the date of this order. Failure to adhere to this deadline will result in dismissal of this action with 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02477-HSG Document 64 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 3