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)

Download PDF
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?