Mallas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Incorporated et al
Filing
13
ORDER that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s 12 Motion for Summary Disposition is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal and denied to the extent it seeks dismissal with prejudice as follows: Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.'s Motion to Dismiss the Compl aint 5 is granted. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 6 is granted. The case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendants accordingly. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 1/3/12.(DMT)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; Wells)
Fargo Bank, N.A.; Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.,)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Nick Mallas,
No. CV 11-08129-PCT-JAT
ORDER
16
17
Pending before the Court are Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.’s Motion to Dismiss the
18
Complaint (Doc. 5), filed on August 18, 2011, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss
19
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Doc. 6), filed on August 22, 2011, Wells Fargo Bank,
20
N.A.’s Motion for Summary Disposition (Doc. 12), filed on September 16, 2011. Plaintiff
21
is representing himself and has not filed a response to any of these motions.1
22
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
23
On November 30, 2006, Plaintiff executed a promissory note in the amount of
24
$236,000.00, in connection with a loan from On Q Financial, Inc. (“On Q”). (Doc. 6, Exhibit
25
A). The promissory note was secured by a Deed of Trust recorded against the property
26
27
1
28
The Post Office has returned all mail sent by the Court to Plaintiff as undeliverable.
1
located at 260 Lake Havasu Avenue North, Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86403 (the
2
“Property”). (Id. at Exhibit B). The Deed of Trust was executed by Plaintiff, as borrower,
3
in favor of Capital Title Agency, as trustee for On Q. (Id.). In the Deed of Trust, Mortgage
4
Electronic Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), as nominee for On Q, was named as beneficiary. (Id.).
5
MERS assigned the Deed of Trust to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) (Id.
6
at Exhibit C). The Assignment of the Deed of Trust was recorded on February 24, 2009.
7
(Id.). On March 9, 2011, a Notice of Substitution of Trustee was recorded, in which Wells
8
Fargo appointed Michael A. Bosco, Jr. (“Bosco”) as the successor trustee under the Deed of
9
Trust. (Id. at Exhibit D). Immediately, thereafter, Bosco recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale.
10
(Id. at Exhibit E). The trustee’s sale of the Property was originally scheduled for June 8,
11
2011. (Id.). On July 9, 2011, the Property was sold at public auction. (Id. at Exhibit F).
12
II.
13
On July 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action in Mohave County Superior Court. On
14
THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
15
In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that none of the “alleged
16
beneficiaries or representatives of the Beneficiary” have the original Note on the Property
17
to prove that they were the party authorized to conduct the foreclosure on the Property.
18
(Doc. 1 at Exhibit A, ¶ 9). Plaintiff alleges that the notices and foreclosure of the Property
19
failed to conform with the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 33-811(A) and,
20
thus, the foreclosure is void as a matter of law. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-12, 31, 32). Plaintiff alleges that
21
Defendants represented to Plaintiff and third parties that they were the owner of the Trust
22
Deed and Note as either the Trustee or Beneficiary on the Property and, based on this
23
representation, they caused a notice of default to be issued in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
24
(Id. at 44).
25
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant2 verbally promised him a loan modification and
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff does not identify which Defendant verbally promised him a loan
modification.
-2-
1
subsequently revoked the offer after Plaintiff complied with Wells Fargo’s requests for
2
financial information. (Id. at ¶ 21). Plaintiff alleges that he justifiably relied on this promise
3
to his detriment. (Id. at ¶ 22, 23). Plaintiff alleges that this justifiable reliance resulted in
4
damages in the form of a higher interest loan, harm to his credit score, and foreclosure of the
5
Property. (Id.).
6
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants knew they had no right to foreclose on his
7
property because they did not possess the original note. (Id. at 25). Plaintiff alleges that all
8
documents related to his loan were contracts of adhesion. (Id. at 29). Plaintiff alleges that
9
the type of loan given to him was unconscionable. (Id. at 30). Plaintiff alleges that
10
Defendants had a duty to prevent such foreclosure, but failed to act. (Id. at 36). Plaintiff
11
alleges that Defendants have no standing to enforce a non-judicial foreclosure. (Id. at 42).
12
Plaintiff does not allege that his loan payments were current at the time the power of
13
sale provisions in the Deed of Trust were invoked by the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust.
14
On August 15, 2011, Defendants removed this action from Mohave County Superior
15
Court. On August 18, 2011, Defendant Tiffany and Bosco filed a Motion to Dismiss the First
16
Amended Complaint arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
17
granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On August 22, Defendant
18
Wells Fargo also filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
19
12(b)(6). After Plaintiff failed to respond to either of these motions, on September 16, 2011,
20
Wells Fargo filed a Motion for Summary Disposition.
21
In its Motion for Summary Disposition, Wells Fargo argues that, pursuant to Local
22
Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i), Plaintiff’s failure to respond should be considered consent to
23
its Motion to Dismiss.
24
III.
25
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i) provides that if an “unrepresented party or
26
counsel does not serve and file the required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance
27
may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the
28
issue summarily.” LRCiv. 7.2(i). Local Rule 7.2(c) requires responsive memoranda to be
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
-3-
1
filed within fourteen days after a motion is served.
2
“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”
3
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing U.S. v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474
4
(9th Cir. 1979)). “Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are
5
bound by the rules of procedure.” Id. at 54 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.
6
1987)). “Before dismissing the action, the district court is required to weigh several factors:
7
‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage
8
its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the [party seeking dismissal]; (4) the public policy
9
favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
10
sanctions.’” Id. at 53 (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).
11
“The first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the
12
fourth cuts against a default or dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and
13
availability of lesser sanctions.” Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990).
14
In Ghazali, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary dismissal of a 42
15
U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to follow a Nevada district court local rule. Ghazali, 46 F.3d
16
at 53. The Nevada rule, like Local Rule 7.2(i), considered failure to file a response to a
17
motion to “constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” Id. (quoting D. Nev. R.
18
140-6). The Court reasoned that the dismissal was proper because the pro se plaintiff was
19
bound by the rules of procedure, and was given notice of the motion and ample time to
20
respond. Id. at 54 (citing King, 814 F.2d at 567).
21
Similarly, in Carey, the Ninth Circuit upheld a dismissal without prejudice of 42
22
U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to follow a Washington district court rule requiring a pro se
23
plaintiff to keep the court and opposing parties informed of his current address. 856 F.2d
24
1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988). The rule allowed dismissal without prejudice if plaintiff failed
25
to notify the court and opposing parties of his current address within 60 days of the Court
26
receiving undeliverable returned mail from the Post Office. Id. The Court reasoned that the
27
least possible sanction would be dismissal without prejudice because “[i]t would be absurd
28
to require the district court to hold a case in abeyance indefinitely just because it is unable,
-4-
1
through the plaintiff’s own fault, to contact the plaintiff to determine if his reasons for not
2
prosecuting his lawsuit are reasonable or not.” Id.
3
In this case, Plaintiff has failed to respond to any of the pending three motions that
4
could determine the merits of his case and all of the motions have been pending for at least
5
four months. As in Carey, the Court does not know and has no way of determining if
6
Plaintiff intended to abandon this case or has simply failed to inform the Court and opposing
7
parties of his current address. Regardless, it would prejudice Defendants and severely
8
hamper the Court’s ability to manage its own docket to keep this case pending indefinitely.
9
Although all of Plaintiff’s claims seem to be premised on theories that have consistently been
10
rejected by the District Court of Arizona and the First Amended Complaint does not contain
11
one well-pled fact as to why Tiffany and Bosco was named as a Defendant in this action, the
12
Court finds that the least drastic sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motions to
13
dismiss is dismissal of the case without prejudice.
14
IV.
CONCLUSION
15
Based on the foregoing,
16
IT IS ORDERED that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion for Summary Disposition
17
(Doc. 12) is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal and denied to the extent it seeks dismissal
18
with prejudice as follows:
19
Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 5) is granted.
20
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
21
22
23
24
(Doc. 6) is granted.
The case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
for Defendants accordingly.
DATED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
25
26
27
28
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?