Hector Medina v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 7 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated). (lc) Modified on 5/14/2014 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HECTOR MEDINA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

15
16

Defendant.
___________________________

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-02298 DDP (PLAx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS
[Dkt. No. 7]

Before the court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells

18

Fargo)’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Dkt. No. 7.) The

19

motion is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral

20

argument. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court

21

adopts the following order.

22
23
24

I.

Background
On December 5, 2007, Plaintiff borrowed $502,000 from World

25

Savings Bank to purchase a property located at 2615-2615½ West

26

Norwood Place, Alhambra, CA 91803.1

The loan was memorialized in a

27
1

28

The Complaint, portions of which appear to have been copied
from another action involving a different plaintiff, states
elsewhere that the property at issue is 22411 N. Bear Creek Drive
(continued...)

1

signed note and secured by a signed deed of trust. (See Complaint

2

¶¶ 3, 8; Wells Fargo’s Request for Judicial Notice, Exs. F & G.)

3

World Savings was renamed Wachovia Mortgage, FSB on December 31,

4

2007 and later merged with Defendant Wells Fargo. (See RJN Exs. B,

5

D.)

6

It appears Plaintiff began to have difficulties making

7

payments on the loan as of August 15, 2009. (See RJN Ex. I at 2.)

8

On January 16, 2012, Plaintiff received a Notice of Trustee Sale

9

from Well’s Fargo for a sale to take place February 16, 2012. (See

10

Compl. ¶ 9.) A subsequent Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded by

11

Wells Fargo on January 8, 2014, setting a sale on January 30, 2014.

12

(RJN Ex. J.)

13

On February 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant action to

14

quiet title under California Code of Civil Procedure § 760.020 in

15

Los Angeles County Superior Court. Referring to the sale set for

16

February 16, 2012, Plaintiff seeks a declaration of the court

17

stating that neither Wells Fargo nor Regional Trustee Service

18

Corporation have a right to bring the trustee sale; injunctive

19

relief staying the trustee sale; and a declaration of quiet title

20

and a determination of Plaintiff’s title against the adverse

21

interest of Wachovia Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo, or

22

Regional Trustee Service Corporation. (See FAC ¶¶ 9-22.)

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

(...continued)
North, Murrieta, CA 92652. (Compl. ¶ 20.) However, a review of the
record confirms that the property actually at issue is located at
2615-2615½ West Norwood Place, Alhambra, CA 91803. (See RNJ Exs. F
& G.)
2

1

Wells Fargo removed the action to this court on March 25,

2

2014. (Dkt. No. 1.) On April 1, 2014, it filed the instant Motion

3

to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 7.)

4
5
6
7

II.

Legal Standard
A complaint will survive a motion to dismiss when it

8

"contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a

9

claim to relief that is plausible on its face."

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

10

129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

11

550 U.S.

12

motion, a court must "accept as true all allegations of material

13

fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to

14

the plaintiff." Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

15

2000).

16

allegations," it must offer "more than an unadorned,

17

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."

18

at 1949.

19

than a statement of a legal conclusion "are not entitled to the

20

assumption of truth." Id. at 1950. In other words, a pleading that

21

merely offers "labels and conclusions," a "formulaic recitation of

22

the elements," or "naked assertions" will not be sufficient to

23

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 1949

24

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

25

544, 570 (2007)).

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6)

Although a complaint need not include "detailed factual

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

Conclusory allegations or allegations that are no more

"When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should

26

assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly

27

give rise to an entitlement of relief." Id. at 1950. Plaintiffs

28

must allege "plausible grounds to infer" that their claims rise
3

1

"above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56.

2

"Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

3

relief" is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing

4

court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal,

5

129 S. Ct. at 1950.

6
7
8
9

III. Discussion
Wells Fargo initially contends that Plaintiff’s claims are
preempted by the Home Owners Loan Act of 1933, 12 U.S.C. § 1461 et

10

seq (“HOLA”), and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by the

11

Treasury Department’s Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”), 12

12

C.F.R. § 560.2. (See Motion at 5.) While most courts have held that

13

quiet title and wrongful foreclosure actions involving similar

14

facts are preempted under HOLA, there is some split in authority on

15

this issue. See, e.g., Terrazas v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL

16

5774120, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013) (Plaintiff’s quiet title

17

action based on contention that Wells Fargo is not the true owner

18

of deed of trust signed with World Savings Bank “is clearly within

19

the bounds of HOLA” preemption.); Winding v. Cal-W. Reconveyance

20

Corp., 2011 WL 221321, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2011) (same). But

21

see Cheung v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 6017497, at *1 (N.D.

22

Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (holding that wrongful foreclosure claim

23

asserting that Wells Fargo was not beneficiary of mortgage with

24

World Savings Bank is not preempted under HOLA). However, the court

25

need not resolve the preemption question in the instant case

26

because Plaintiff’s claim plainly fails on the merits.

27
28

The only basis for relief asserted in this action to quiet
title is that the power of sale in the deed of trust, signed
4

1

originally with World Savings Bank, did not pass through to Wells

2

Fargo (or its agent-designee Regional Trustee Service Corporation)

3

because the latter were never validly assigned the deed of trust.

4

(See Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.) However, Wells Fargo did not obtain or claim

5

to obtain power of sale by dint of an assignment, but rather became

6

World Savings’ successor-in-interest via a merger. Judicially

7

noticeable documents submitted by Wells Fargo establish that World

8

Savings Bank, FSB, simply changed its name to Wachovia Mortgage,

9

FSB, which then merged with Wells Fargo Bank.(See RJN Exs. B, D.)

10

Because Wells Fargo obtained World Savings’ interests through that

11

merger, no assignment of interest was necessary. See, e.g., Hale v.

12

World Sav. Bank, 2012 WL 4675561, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2012).

13

(“Wells Fargo is the successor-in-interest to Wachovia, which was

14

the successor-in-interest to World Savings. It was thus unnecessary

15

to assign the Deed of Trust to Wells Fargo since the original

16

lender, World Savings, simply changed its name to Wachovia and then

17

merged into Wells Fargo.”); Ngoc Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

18

749 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (same). Plaintiff’s

19

Complaint therefore lacks merit.

20
21
22

In view of this conclusion, the court does not reach Wells
Fargo’s other arguments in support of the instant Motion.
Because the sole basis for relief is plainly meritless, the

23

court finds that leave to amend would be futile and dismissal with

24

prejudice is therefore warranted. Plaintiff asserts in his

25

Opposition that if granted leave to amend, he would allege that:

26

(1) the assignment of [Plaintiff’s] loan into the WAMU Trust

27

is improper because it was not assigned before the end of 2008

28
5

1

as required by the Trust Agreement, and (2) the October 2010

2

assignments are improper because the person purporting to sign

3

the assignment lacked the authority to execute the

4

assignments.

5

(Opposition at 8-9.) These contentions appear to have been copied

6

from a different case involving a different borrower and lender:

7

the loan here involved World Savings Bank, not WAMU; ordinated in

8

2005, not 2008; and no party has asserted that any assignment took

9

place in “October 2010.” In any case, the proposed amendments do

10

not address the above-described defect that is fatal to Plaintiff’s

11

claim: that no assignment was necessary. Lacking any basis to

12

conclude that Plaintiff could cure the Complaint’s defects with an

13

amended filing, the court will dismiss the action with prejudice.

14
15
16
17

IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Wells Fargo’s Motion

to Dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: May 14, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6