Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00758/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00758-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT WADE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF 

COMPTROLLER & CURRENCY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-758 KJM AC 

ORDER 

 Pending before the court is defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo”) May 3, 

2013 motion to dismiss and defendant Office of Comptroller & Currency’s (“OCC”) June 18, 

2013 motion to dismiss. The court has determined that the matters shall be submitted upon the 

record and briefs on file and accordingly, the date for hearing of these matters shall be vacated. 

E.D. Cal. R. 78-230. On review of the motions and documents filed in support and opposition, 

THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 

 RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

A. Factual Allegations 

 Though the precise nature of plaintiff’s complaint is unclear, it appears that he is 

dissatisfied with a 2011 settlement agreement entered into between numerous national banks, 

including Wells Fargo, and numerous state attorneys general with the OCC. Plaintiff claims that 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 07/12/13 Page 1 of 6
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

the harm done by these banks to homeowners in connection with mortgage lending practices 

likely exceeds the money that these banks paid into the settlement, and that therefore the 

defendants should award him more money. 1 Compl. at 1, 11-12, ECF No. 1. 

 Through this action, plaintiff seeks “to evaluate the harm done by Bank, Wells Fargo N.A. 

associates, to place a value according to the list of causes of action against Plaintiff and placing a 

measure of accountability squarely on Banks shoulders, as well as consideration for HARM 

brought.” Compl. 8, ECF No. 1 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff then summarily lists thirty-one 

purported causes of action, including unlawful enrichment, loss of savings, “adversarial 

hearings,” “undue burdensome action upon a Senior Citizen,” and “embarrassment to oneself, 

family and friends.” Id. at 8-10. 

 Plaintiff asks this court to order defendants to produce discovery concerning their dealings 

with federal agencies so that plaintiff may investigate the total harm caused by the banks to 

individuals such as plaintiff. Compl. 11-12, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also asks this court to order 

defendants pay $420,000 to plaintiff “in order to punish defendants.” Id. at 12. Lastly, plaintiff 

asks that defendants be directed to cover his costs and attorney’s fees if this matter goes to 

arbitration for a settlement agreement between the parties. Id. 

B. Procedural History 

 Plaintiff filed suit in this court on April 19, 2013. On May 3, 2013, defendant Wells 

Fargo filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to 

state a claim. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to this motion. ECF No. 16. 

 

1

 Plaintiff fails to allege how or why he has been affected by this settlement agreement. 

Defendant Wells Fargo provides clarification. Documents accompanying its request for judicial 

notice reflect that plaintiff took out a $477,000 home loan on August 22, 2006 from World 

Savings Bank, FSB, the predecessor-in-interest to Wells Fargo, and secured by real property 

located at 14818 Grassland Road, Lodi, CA 95240-9462 (“the Subject Property”). Wells Fargo’s 

Req. Judicial Notice (“RJN”) Ex. A, ECF No. 6 at 5-23. A Notice of Default was recorded 

against the Subject Property on August 20, 2010, RJN Ex. E, ECF No. 6 at 33-35; and a Notice of 

Trustee’s Sale was recorded on February 1, 2011, id. Ex. F, ECF No. 6 at 37. The court can take 

judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources 

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. BernalObeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 07/12/13 Page 2 of 6
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 

3

 On June 18, 2013, defendant OCC also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) 

for failure to state a claim and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. ECF 

No. 18. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion and the time for filing an opposition 

has now passed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). 

 Also pending before the court are plaintiff’s June 12, 2013 motion for intervention and 

June 25, 2013 motion re foreclosure. ECF Nos. 17, 21. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Failure to State a Claim 

 Both defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to this 

rule is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 

F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory 

or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica 

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

555 (2007). Thus, a defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the court’s ability to grant any 

relief on the plaintiff’s claims, even if the plaintiff’s allegations are true. 

 In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the 

court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and construes the allegations in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Love v. 

United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). 

 The court may consider facts established by exhibits attached to the complaint. Durning 

v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). The court may also consider facts 

which may be judicially noticed, Mullis v. United States Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 

(9th Cir. 1987), and matters of public record, including pleadings, orders, and other papers filed 

with the court, Mack v. South Bay Beer Distributors, 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986). The 

court need not accept legal conclusions “cast in the form of factual allegations.” Western Mining 

Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 07/12/13 Page 3 of 6
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 

4

 Having examined the complaint, the court agrees with both defendants that plaintiff fails 

to provide sufficient facts that, accepted as true, would state a claim for relief. While Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations in a pleading, it does 

require more than unadorned “the defendant unlawfully harmed me” accusations. Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The complaint in this case falls well below Rule 8’s standards. 

While far from clear, it appears that plaintiff believes that Wells Fargo has harmed homeowners 

in general, and that the money that Wells Fargo paid into a 2011 settlement agreement was 

insufficient to compensate homeowners for all of the wrongdoing that Wells Fargo allegedly 

committed. Plaintiff’s claim does not surpass the standard set in Iqbal of providing more than 

“the defendant unlawfully harmed me” accusations. 

 In his opposition to Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff cites to Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 

F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010), to argue that pro se litigants’ complaints must be held to a less stringent 

standard and must be liberally construed. Yet even liberally construing the complaint, the 

undersigned finds that plaintiff fails to allege any facts to state a claim to relief. Accordingly, the 

complaint must be dismissed.2 Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to amend. 

 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the jurisdictional 

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Further, plaintiff must 

demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal 

rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

 

2

 Because dismissal is warranted on this ground, the court declines to address the OCC’s 

alternative argument for dismissal. 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 07/12/13 Page 4 of 6
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 

5

B. Miscellaneous Motions 

 1. Motion for Intervention 

 On June 12, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for intervention. Plaintiff claims that on June 5, 

2013, he received an unknown visitor at the Subject Property. While the identity of the visitor 

and the nature of this visit are unclear, plaintiff seeks leave to serve a “duces tecum summons 

[for] all records pertaining to the action taken by opposing counsel and LOAN PROCESSING 

SERVICE.” ECF No. 17 at 2. This motion will be denied for lack of clarity, and absence of a 

legal or factual basis. 

 2. Motion re Foreclosure 

 On June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order enjoining a proposed nonjudicial foreclosure of the Subject Property. Plaintiff filed this motion after a notice of trustee’s 

sale was posted on his front door on June 13, 2013. Plaintiff asserts this notice is in violation of 

the settlement agreement referenced in the complaint and a violation of the bankruptcy code 

because he claims that his debt has been discharged in bankruptcy. Attached to this motion are 

documents related to a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filed by plaintiff in In re Wade, 11-bk-33935. ECF 

No. 21 at 5-6. These documents reflect that plaintiff was granted a discharge under section 727 of 

title II of the United States Bankruptcy Code on November 21, 2011, and that a final decree 

issued on December 15, 2011. Id. 7. On review, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion, like the 

complaint, is factually sparse, conclusory, and confusing. The motion will therefore also be 

denied for absence of a legal or factual basis. 

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The July 17, 2013 hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss is vacated from calendar; 

2. Plaintiff’s June 12, 2013 (ECF No. 17) and June 25, 2013 (ECF No. 21) motions are 

denied; 

3. Defendants’ May 3, 2013 (ECF No. 5) and June 18, 2013 (ECF No. 18) motions to 

dismiss are granted; 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 07/12/13 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

4. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed3; and 

5. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date 

of this order. 

DATED: July 12, 2013 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 ALLISON CLAIRE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

/rm_mb/wade0758.mtd 

 

 

3

 Because the granting of a motion to dismiss with leave to amend is not dispositive of the action, 

the undersigned issues an order in lieu of a Findings and Recommendations. 

Case 2:13-cv-00758-KJM-AC Document 23 Filed 07/12/13 Page 6 of 6