Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110604_0007841.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-06-23 08:55:45
Document Index: 496307873

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1635', '§ 2607', '§ 17200', '§ 1635', '§ 2607', '§ 17200']

| Zaki Hussein v. Wells Fargo Bank
Zaki Hussein v. Wells Fargo Bank
ZAKI HUSSEIN, PLAINTIFF,v.WELLS FARGO BANK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On April 15, 2011, this action was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging claims under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 12 U.S.C. § 1635, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, fraud, and quiet title. The case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On April 22, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint fails to state any legally cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. The record reflects that defendant's motion was properly served on the pro se plaintiff. On May 27, 2011, the case came before the court for hearing on defendants' properly noticed motion. Kimberly Paese, Esq. appeared for the defendants. No appearance was made by or on behalf of plaintiff.
Upon consideration of all written materials filed in connection with the motion and the entire file, the undersigned recommends that defendants' motion to dismiss be granted.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO REMAND
Plaintiff alleges claims under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 12 U.S.C. § 1635, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, fraud, and quiet title. Plaintiff also filed a motion to remand, contending removal was improper. (Doc. No. 15.) However, plaintiff's complaint plainly references RESPA and TILA; removal under federal question was therefore proper and plaintiff's motion to remand should be denied.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on April 22, 2011. Plaintiff did not file timely written opposition to the motion, did not appear at the hearing on the motion held on May 27, 2011, and did not file any opposition after the hearing. Plaintiff's failure to appear at the properly noticed hearing on defendant's motion may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed a statement of no opposition to the granting of the motions. See Local Rule 230(i). An inference of non-opposition in the present case is supported by plaintiff's failure to file written opposition and failure to appear at the hearing. See Local Rule 230(c) ("No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.").
The undersigned finds that plaintiff's failure to file written opposition and failure to appear at the hearings on defendants' motion to dismiss, considered together with plaintiff's failure to participate in this action since its initiation other than the filing of a brief motion for remand, should be deemed a statement of no opposition to the granting of defendants' motion. Nonetheless, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, the undersigned has reviewed defendants' arguments and addresses them below.
Defendants have requested judicial notice of documents related to the matters at issue. (Doc. No. 13.) Defendants' request for judicial notice will be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (on a motion to dismiss, court may consider matters of public record); MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir.1986) (on a ...