Leticia Munguia v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 109

MINUTES OF MOVANT MARIA OSUNA'S MOTION TO INTERVENE 99 Hearing held before Judge Christina A. Snyder. In accordance with the foregoing, Maria Osuna's motion to intervene is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: Laura Elias. (lom)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV15-582-CAS(JCx)

Title

LETICIA MUNGUIA v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’

June 6, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Connie Lee
Deputy Clerk

Laura Elias
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Maria Osuna, Pro Se

Stephen Britt
Sam Muriella

Proceedings:

I.

MOVANT MARIA OSUNA’S MOTION TO INTERVENE (Dkt.
99, filed May 3, 2016)

INTRODUCTION

On January 26, 2015, pro se plaintiff Leticia Munguia filed a verified complaint
against defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), NBS Default Services, LLC
(“NBS”), APB Properties, LLC (“APB”), and Does 1 through 10. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff’s
initial complaint asserted claims under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights
(“HBOR”), Cal. Civil Code §§ 2923, 2924; California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7; the
Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27, 29 U.S.C. §§ 52–53; and the Cartwright Act,
Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code §§ 16700, et seq. Id. Plaintiff also asserted a claim for
declaratory relief. Id.
In February 2015, defendants Wells Fargo and APB moved to dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). By order dated March
30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ respective motions.
Dkt. 37. Specifically, the Court concluded that plaintiff had stated claims against Wells
Fargo for wrongful foreclosure and violation of the HBOR, but dismissed the remainder
of the claims asserted against Wells Fargo without prejudice. The Court likewise
concluded that plaintiff had stated a claim for wrongful foreclosure against APB, but
dismissed without prejudice all other claims asserted against that defendant.
On April 27, 2015, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”).
Dkt. 42. The FAC alleges claims against Wells Fargo and NBS for violation of the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

CV15-582-CAS(JCx)

June 6, 2016

Title

LETICIA MUNGUIA v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., ET AL.

HBOR and UCL, FAC ¶¶ 44-90, as well as claims against Wells Fargo, NBS, and APB
for wrongful foreclosure and declaratory relief, id. ¶¶ 91–124.1 Trial in this matter is
currently scheduled for November 1, 2016.
On May 2, 2016, prospective intervenor Maria Osuna (“Osuna”) filed a motion to
intervene pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b). Dkt. 99. On
May 16, 2016, defendants filed an opposition to the instant motion. Dkt. 107. On June 6,
2016, the Court held oral argument on the instant motion. Having carefully considered
the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

BACKGROUND

Prospective intervenor Maria Osuna has been a co-occupant of the foreclosed
property in this action since the signing of the Deed of Trust on July 13, 2004. Mot.
Intervene ¶ 10. Osuna asserts that she has made payments towards the property and
utilities since 2004, and that “she has substantial interest in the subject matter of the
action outcome of the case.” Mot. Intervene ¶¶ 11, 18. However, Osuna is not actually
listed on the Deed of Trust and is not a borrower on the loan that gives rise to the instant
suit. Compl. Ex. A.
Osuna avers that she decided to intervene in this action after what took place at
plaintiff’s scheduled deposition on March 23, 2016. Mot. Intervene ¶ 19. Osuna
contends that on that day, plaintiff Leticia Munguia, as a result of “the very heated and
uncomfortable atmosphere that was created [just before the deposition] by APB’s
attorney Sam Muriella,” experienced emotional break downs that prevent her from
adequately protecting Osuna’s interests in this action. Mot. Intervene ¶¶ 2, 21.
Accordingly, Osuna now seeks to intervene as a plaintiff of right pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), or, in the alternative, to permissively intervene pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b).
III.

DISCUSSION

1

In an order dated May 14, 2015, the Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s
claim for declaratory relief against APB.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV15-582-CAS(JCx)

Title

LETICIA MUNGUIA v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., ET AL.
A.

Date

‘O’

June 6, 2016

Intervention of Right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)

Osuna first seeks to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(a), which provides as follows:
Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be
permitted to intervene in an action:
(1)

when a statute of the United States confers an
unconditional right to intervene; or

(2)

when the applicant claims an interest relating to
the property or transaction which is the subject of
the action and the applicant is so situated that the
disposition of the action may as practical matter
impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect
that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is
adequately represented by existing parties.

The Ninth Circuit has adopted a four-part test for applying Rule 24(a)(2):
(1) the applicant must timely move to intervene; (2) the
applicant must have a significantly protectable interest relating
to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action;
(3) the applicant must be situated such that the disposition of
the action may impair or impede the party’s ability to protect
that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must not be
adequately represented by existing parties.
Arakaki v. Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). The rule is
construed broadly in favor of applicants for intervention. United States v. Oregon, 839
F.2d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 1988). However, each of the above four elements must be
demonstrated in order to provide a non-party with a right to intervene. League of United
Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

CV15-582-CAS(JCx)

June 6, 2016

Title

LETICIA MUNGUIA v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., ET AL.

Here, Osuna’s motion to intervene must fail because Osuna does not demonstrate
that she has a “significantly protectable interest” in the underlying property or the loan at
issue in this litigation. The requirement that a prospective intervenor have a significantly
protectable interest is generally satisfied when “the interest is protectable under some
law, and that there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims
at issue.” Sierra Club v. EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993). The applicant “need
not show that the interest he asserts is one that is protected by statute under which
litigation is brought. . . . It is enough that the interest is protectable under any statute.”
United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004) (internal citation
omitted). Further, “[a]n applicant generally satisfies the ‘relationship’ requirement only
if the resolution of the plaintiff’s claims actually will affect the applicant.” Donnelly, 159
F.3d at 410.
The gravamen of plaintiff’s operative complaint is that defendants wrongfully
foreclosed on her property while plaintiff’s loan modification application was pending, a
practice known as “dual tracking” that is expressly prohibited by section 2923.6(c) of the
HBOR. Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6(c). Plaintiff also asserts that defendants violated section
2924.11 of the California Civil Code. See FAC at ¶ 17. Both of these statutory
provisions apply only to “borrowers,” as that term is defined in the HBOR. See Cal. Civ.
Code § 2920.5(c)(1) (defining “borrower” as “any natural person who is a mortgagor or
trustor and who is potentially eligible for any federal, state, or proprietary foreclosure
prevention alternative program offered by, or through, his or her mortgage servicer”); see
also Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.12(b) (providing that defendants are liable only to the
borrower for economic damages that result from a material violation of sections 2923.6
and 2924.11).
It is undisputed that Osuna, who is not named on the Deed of Trust, is not a
“borrower” under the HBOR, and therefore does not have an interest in the property that
is protected by any of the HBOR provisions at issue in this lawsuit. Although Osuna
avers that she has contributed to plaintiff’s mortgage payments in the past and therefore
has an “equity interest” in the property, Mot. Intervene at ¶ 1, Osuna fails to cite any legal
authority holding that her status as a non-borrower occupant grants her an interest
protected either by the statutes at issue here, or by any other authority. Osuna’s motion to
intervene under Rule 24(a) must accordingly be denied on this ground alone. C.f.
Portland Audubon Soc. v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302, 309 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district
court’s denial of a motion to intervene where prospective-intervenors––despite “hav[ing]
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

CV15-582-CAS(JCx)

June 6, 2016

Title

LETICIA MUNGUIA v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., ET AL.

a significant economic stake in the outcome of the plaintiffs’ case”––failed to identify
any “ ‘protectable’ interest justifying intervention as of right”), abrogated in part on other
grounds by Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011).
B.

Permissive Intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(b)

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[a] motion for permissive intervention
pursuant to Rule 24(b) is directed to the sound discretion of the district court.” San Jose
Mercury News, Inc v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999). In this circuit,
there are three prerequisites that an applicant seeking permissive intervention under Rule
24(b)(2) must establish: “(1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is
timely; and (3) the applicant’s claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of
law or a question of fact in common.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
Here, Osuna, as a co-occupant of the underlying property, appears to be attempting
to assert the same claims as the sole plaintiff in this action, who is the borrower on the
underlying loan. Accordingly, Osuna’s claims undoubtedly “have a question of law or a
question of fact in common” with those asserted by plaintiff. Id. However, for reasons
stated supra, Osuna’s attempt to intervene under Rule 24(b) must fail because she does
not establish that her claims are supported by independent jurisdictional grounds. See
Blake v. Pallan, 554 F.2d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 1977) (“The prevailing view of the federal
courts is that the claims of permissive Rule 24(b) intervenors must be supported by
independent jurisdictional grounds.”). Because Osuna could not independently have
brought a claim under the statutes upon which plaintiff based her claims in the operative
complaint––and because Osuna has not asserted any other grounds for the court’s
exercise of jurisdiction over her claims––her motion for permissive intervention under
Rule 24(b) must be denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

CV15-582-CAS(JCx)

June 6, 2016

Title

LETICIA MUNGUIA v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., ET AL.

In accordance with the foregoing, Maria Osuna’s motion to intervene is hereby
DENIED.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

:

03

CL

2

In denying Osuna’s motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this action, the Court
notes, as it did during oral argument on the instant motion, that Osuna remains free to
assist pro se plaintiff Leticia Munguia in her prosecution of this case. For example,
Osuna may file declarations in support of plaintiff’s motions and/or plaintiff’s
oppositions to defendants’ motions in this action.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 6 of 6