Bullock et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, na

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS The Court adopts the Report and Recommendations at 27 and the Motion to Dismiss at 23 is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 5/13/24. (LMH, COURT STAFF, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

FREDERICK BULLOCK & RENEE
BULLOCK,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 4:23-cv-00017-SLG-KFR
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. aka
WELLS FARGO HOME
MORTGAGE,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court at Docket 23 is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Wells
Fargo”) Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs Frederick and Renee Bullock responded in
opposition at Docket 24 to which Defendant Wells Fargo replied at Docket 25. The
motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At
Docket 27, Judge Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he
recommended that the motion be granted and that Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed
with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the Report and

Recommendation at Docket 28 to which Wells Fargo replied at Docket 29.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 A court is

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2
However, § 636(b)(1) does not “require district court review of a magistrate’s
factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither
party objects to those findings.”3
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant the Motion to
Dismiss and that Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate
Judge recounted the litigation history of the parties, including the prior case that
culminated in the 2016 judgment entered by this Court in favor of Defendant with
respect to the North Pole Property.4 Plaintiffs did not pursue an appeal of that
judgment. Rather, they brought the instant case in 2023, which also involves the
same North Pole Property. The Magistrate Judge recommended that this new
action be dismissed because of the doctrine of claim preclusion, a doctrine that
precludes parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair
opportunity litigate, and including matters that could have been raised in the
previous case.5 The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the dismissal be
without leave to amend, because permitting leave to file an amended complaint

2

Id.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
3

4

Case No. 3:14-cv-00010-TMB.

5

Docket 27 at 7 (citing Weber v. State, 166 P.3d 899, 901 (Alaska 2007)).

Case No. 4:23-cv-00017-SLG-KFR, Bullock, et al. v. Wells Fargo
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
Page 2 of 3

would be “futile,” a term used by the United States Supreme Court that applies
when a court determines that there is no possible way for a litigant to cure the
deficiencies identified in the complaint.6
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and, on de novo
review, agrees with its analysis. Due process does not accord to every civil litigant
the right to a jury trial. Rather, there are established rules in place that apply in
civil litigation that allow for the dismissal of an action without a jury trial when the
complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Because Plaintiffs already had
a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims about the North Pole Property
against Wells Fargo in the earlier case, dismissal of this action with prejudice is
clearly warranted.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and IT IS
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss at Docket 23 is GRANTED. This case is
DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment in favor of
Wells Fargo.
DATED this 13th day of May 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

Case No. 4:23-cv-00017-SLG-KFR, Bullock, et al. v. Wells Fargo
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
Page 3 of 3