Fred Gober v. Wells Fargo and Company et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 26 AND VACATING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 28 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FRED GOBER, on behalf of
himself and all other
similarly situated,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-07120 DDP (PLAx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND
VACATING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
[Dkt. Nos. 26, 28]

16
17

Defendants.
___________________________

18
Presently before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for a More
19
Definite Statement (dkt. no. 26), and Plaintiff’s Motion for an
20
Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants’ Motion (dkt. no.
21
28).

After reviewing the Parties’ submissions, the Court DENIES

22
Defendants’ Motion and VACATES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion.
23
Defendants’ Motion claims that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to
24
“plead basic facts about the contract or the breach,” including by
25
“not identify[ing] any specific document that might constitute a
26
contract.”

(Dkt. no. 26, at 1.)

Defendants claim that Plaintiff’s

27
theory of liability is unclear in the Complaint and so Defendants
28
cannot properly respond to the Complaint.

(Id. at 4.)

Defendants

1

say Plaintiff might be claiming breach of a loan application, or

2

perhaps an approved loan application, or even some other,

3

unspecified communications; it is unclear to Defendants based on

4

the allegations in the Complaint.

5

(Id. at 4-5.)

In response, Plaintiff alleged that he lacked the evidence

6

needed to properly answer Defendants’ Motion, which he believed was

7

in Defendants’ possession.

8

Plaintiff, Defendants had thus far declined Plaintiff’s requests

9

for the needed evidence – the loan application “executed and/or

(Dkt. no. 28, at 2.)

According to

10

approved by the parties and at issue in this case.”

11

Plaintiff asks this Court to stay Defendants’ Motion and allow

12

limited discovery for the purpose of obtaining the underlying loan

13

application.

14

(Id.)

(Id. at 4.)

On January 19, 2016, Defendants filed a Response to

15

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time.

16

Defendants argue against early discovery, stating that they

17

provided Plaintiff with the loan application that day.

18

Saelao Decl., Dkt. no. 32-1, at 1.)

19

oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time for Plaintiff to

20

respond to Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement.

21

(Dkt. no. 32.)

(Id. at 2;

Defendants do not otherwise

(Id.)

The Court denies Defendants’ Motion because, while the

22

Complaint may be sparse on details of exactly what contractual

23

provision is alleged to be breached, the essential elements of a

24

breach of contract are all pled with sufficient facts given the

25

information available to Plaintiff at this time.

26

The Court, however, declines Plaintiff’s request for limited

27

discovery as to the loan application.

28

proceed following the parties’ Rule 26 meeting.
2

Normal discovery will
Plaintiff then

1

will receive the needed evidence, if any, to make a more definite

2

statement.

3

no. 26.)

4

28.)

Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion.

The Court VACATES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion.

(Dkt.

(Dkt. no.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: February 1, 2016
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3