Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01428/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01428-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

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

ALBERT PATRICK ZAPPIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1428-WQH-DHB

Order

vs.

WORLD SAVINGS F.S.B.,

WACHOVIA F.S.B., WELLS

FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, and

GOLDEN WEST SAVINGS

ASSOCIATION SERVICE CO., a

California Company; SANDRA

KNOWLES, an individual;

GUSTAVO RODRIGUEZ, an

individual; KEN REED, an individual;

DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss Complaint, filed by

Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger with Wells Fargo Bank

Southwest, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB

(“Wells Fargo”), and Golden West Savings Association Service Co. (“Golden”) (ECF

No. 7), the Motion to Disqualify and Motion to Strike (“Motion to Disqualify/Strike”),

filed by Plaintiff, and the Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (”FAC”),

filed by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 10, 12).

BACKGROUND

On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint against

Wells Fargo, Golden, Gustavo Rodriguez, Sandra Knowles, Ken Reed, and Does 1

- 1 - 14cv1428WQH-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-01428-WQH-DHB Document 15 Filed 09/30/14 Page 1 of 4
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

through 10. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint alleges: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against

Defendant Wells Fargo, (2) fraud against Defendants Wells Fargo and Reed, (3) mail

fraud against all Defendants, (4) violation of the Fair Debt and Collection Practices Act

(“FDCPA”) against all Defendants, (5) declaratory relief against all Defendants, (6)

rescission against Defendants Wells Fargo and Golden, (7) violation of the Truth in

Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. section 1641(G)(1)(A-E) against Defendants Wells

Fargo, Knowles, Rodriguez, and Reed, (8) adverse possession against Defendants Wells

Fargo and Does 1 through 10, (9) accounting and violation of the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act (“RESPA”) 12 U.S.C.A. 2605(E); 24 C.F.R. 3500 against all

Defendants. (ECF No. 1).

On July 9, 2014, Defendants Wells Fargo and Golden filed the Motion to

Dismiss. (ECF No. 7). On August 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response. (ECF No. 9). 

On August 8, 2014, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 11).

On August 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Disqualify/Strike. (ECF No. 10). 

On August 18, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify

Counsel. (ECF No. 13). On September 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 14).

On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Leave to File FAC. (ECF No.

12). The Plaintiff requests to amend the Complaint in order to fix typographical errors,

add a claim for retaliation, add/remove parties, and allege additional facts. (ECF No.

12-1 at 2). 

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

Plaintiff contends that the proposed amendments are necessary and in furtherance

of justice. Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that the Defendants will not suffer any prejudice

by undue delay because discovery has not yet commenced and there has been no answer

filed by Defendants. Id. at 7. Defendants have not filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File FAC.

Plaintiff further contends that Defendants’ attorney of record David M. Newman

- 2 - 14cv1428WQH-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-01428-WQH-DHB Document 15 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 4
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

(“Newman”) in the Motion to Dismiss attempts to misstate the actual facts pled in the

complaint and introduce irrelevant, new facts that have not been pled in the motion to

dismiss . Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that Newman has personal knowledge of fact issues

that he presented in the Motion to Dismiss and documents that were provided in the

Request for Judicial Notice and Plaintiff has the right to call upon anyone who has

knowledge of the facts before this case and who has submitted evidence to this Court.

(ECF No. 10-1 at 3). Plaintiff contends that if an attorney is likely to testify on behalf

of a client about fact issues, the attorney should be disqualified. (ECF No. 10-1 at 2)

(citing Int’l Woodworkers v. Chesapeake Bay Playwood Corp., 659 F.2d 1259, 1273

(4th Cir. 1981); Model Rules of Prof. Conduct R. 3.7(a)(2011)).

 Defendants contend that California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-210 has no

application. (ECF No. 13 at 3). Defendants contend that Newman is not acting as a 

fact witness in conjunction with Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss and Rule 5-210 is

inapplicable because it only applies to situations where counsel to one of the parties in

litigation serves as a fact witness before a jury and only the Court will decide the merits

of the Motion to Dismiss. Id. at 3-4.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests to amend the Complaint in order to fix typographical errors, add

a claim for retaliation, add/remove parties, and allege additional facts. (ECF No. 12-1

at 2). Plaintiff alleges that the proposed amendments are necessary and in furtherance

of justice. Id. at 3. Plaintiff further contends that the Defendants will not suffer any

prejudice by undue delay because discovery has not yet commenced and there has been

no answer filed by Defendants. Id. at 7. Defendants have not filed an opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File FAC.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 mandates that leave to amend “be freely given

when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “This policy is to be applied with

extreme liberality.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th

Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). In determining whether to allow an amendment, a court

- 3 - 14cv1428WQH-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-01428-WQH-DHB Document 15 Filed 09/30/14 Page 3 of 4
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

considers whether there is “undue delay,” “bad faith,” “undue prejudice to the opposing

party,” or “futility of amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “Not

all of the [Foman] factors merit equal weight.... [I]t is the consideration of prejudice

to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight.” Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at

1052 (citation omitted). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing

prejudice.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir. 1987). 

“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there

exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence

Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

After review of the Motion for Leave to File FAC and all related filings, the

Court concludes that Defendants have not made a sufficiently strong showing of the

Foman factors to overcome the presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave

to amend. See Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052. Defendants failed to file an

opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File FAC. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 7), addressing the Complaint, will become moot once Plaintiff files the FAC. 

See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). To the extent

Plaintiff seeks to disqualify Newman based on the likelihood of testifying on behalf of

Defendants about fact issues regarding the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s Motion to

Disqualify/Strike is denied as moot. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint is GRANTED. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff shall file the First Amended

Complaint within ten days of the date this Order is filed. The Motion to Dismiss the

Complaint (ECF No. 7) and Motion to Disqualify Counsel and Motion to Strike (ECF

No. 10) are DENIED as moot.

DATED: September 30, 2014

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv1428WQH-NLS

Case 3:14-cv-01428-WQH-DHB Document 15 Filed 09/30/14 Page 4 of 4