Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180424_0000062.DRI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:40:10+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Rocha v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Rocha v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. D/B/A WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE d/b/a AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY; U.S. BANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE, FOR RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION, HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-EMX1; HARMON LAW OFFICES P.C.; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF'S TITLE THERETO; INDIVIDUALLY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants', Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. d/b/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage d/b/a America's Servicing Company (“Wells Fargo”) and U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, for Residential Asset Securities Corporation, Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-EMX1 (“U.S. Bank”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Damages (“Motion”) (ECF No. 48) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Ernesto Rocha's First Amended Complaint for Damages (“Complaint”) (ECF No. 38) brings claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty (Count I), initiation of wrongful foreclosure (Count II), conversion and unjust enrichment (Count III), and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count IV). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion.
Plaintiff allegedly suffered “debilitating” health issues brought on by Wells Fargo's conduct. (Id. at 19.) And in January 2016, unsure of how to extricate himself from the situation, and believing his mortgage had been paid in full, Plaintiff stopped making payments, which he felt was “the only way left to get someone at Wells Fargo to address the problems” with the company's handling of his account. (Id. at 2.) Wells Fargo responded by issuing a notice that a foreclosure sale was scheduled for Plaintiff's home. (Id. at 3.) In an effort to stave off foreclosure, Plaintiff brought the instant suit.
On a motion to dismiss, the Court must decide whether the complaint has made “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). That is, the Court must decide whether the claim is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)). In conducting this inquiry, the Court “accept[s] the truth of all well-pleaded facts and draws all reasonable inferences therefrom in the pleader's favor.” García-Catalán, 734 F.3d at 102 (quoting Grajales v. P.R. Ports Auth., 682 F.3d 40, 44 (1st Cir. 2012)). The complaint need not include “a high degree of factual specificity.” Grajales, 682 F.3d at 47. But it “must contain more than a rote recital of the elements of a cause of action.” Rodríguez-Reyes v. Molina-Rodríguez, 711 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.