Jose Angel C Barajas v. World Savings Bank FSB et al
Filing
22
JUDGMENT of Dismissal of Action with Prejudice by Judge James V. Selna, in favor of Wells Fargo Bank NA against Jose Angel C Barajas (twdb)
1
2
3
4
5
6
A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION
10
11 JOSE ANGEL C. BARAJAS,
12
13
CASE NO.: 8:13-cv-01246-JVS-JPR
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL OF
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
14
15 WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB;
BRADLEY THOMAS LUDES;
16 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., d/b/a
[Assigned to the Honorable James V.
WELLS FARGO HOME
17 MORTGAGE; GOLDEN WEST
Selna]
SAVINGS ASSOCIATION SERVICE
18 COMPANY AS TRUSTEE; NDEX
WEST, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100
19 inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
On December 18, 2013, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
24 Procedure, the Court entered an Order granting the Motion to Dismiss the Entire
25 Complaint For Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply With the Court’s Order filed by
26 defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., successor by merger with Wells Fargo
27 Bank Southwest, N.A., formerly known as Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, formerly
28 known as World Savings Bank, FSB (sued as “WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB”
93000/BR1040/00781057-1
1
CASE NO.: 8:13-CV-01246-JVS-JPR
JUDGMENT OF
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1 and “WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME
2 MORTGAGE”) and Golden West Savings Association Service Co. (“Golden
3 West”) (collectively “Wells Fargo”) and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.
4 Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
6
1.
The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice;
7
A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP
5
2.
Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Wells Fargo;
8
3.
Plaintiff Jose Angel C. Barajas shall take and recover nothing in this
9
10
11
action from Wells Fargo; and
4.
As the prevailing party, Wells Fargo may submit motions to tax costs
and recover reasonable attorneys’ fees.
12
13
14
15 Dated: January 24, 2014
THE HONORABLE JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
93000/BR1040/00781057-1
2
CASE NO.: 8:13-CV-01246-JVS-JPR
JUDGMENT OF
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to
3 this action. I am employed in the city of Pasadena, California; my business address
is 199 S. Los Robles Avenue, Suite 600, Pasadena, California 91101-2459.
4
On December 18, 2013, I served a copy of the foregoing document entitled:
5
6
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL OF ACTION
WITH PREJUDICE
A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP
7
8
on all interested parties in said case as follows:
9
10
Served By Means Other than Electronically Via the Court’s CM/ECF System:
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
12
Joseph Sclafani
Law Office of Joseph Sclafani
12981 Perris Blvd., Suite 113
Moreno Valley, CA 92553
Tel: 951.242.7028
sclafani@daytyme.com
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
[X]
BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and
processing correspondence by mailing. Under that same practice it would
be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage fully
prepaid at Pasadena, California in the ordinary course of business. I am
aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if
postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after
date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the
24
office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was
25 made. This declaration is executed in Pasadena, California, on December 18, 2013.
23
26
27 MICHAEL KAPLAN
(Type or Print Name)
28
93000/BR1040/00781057-1
/s/ Michael A. Kaplan
(Signature of Declarant)
CASE NO.:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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?