Chang v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB et al
Filing
39
ORDER Dismissing Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 12/8/11. (tdm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2011)
A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP
1 Leigh O. Curran (# 173322)
lcurran@afrct.com
2 ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN,
CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN LLP
3 199 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 600
Pasadena, California 91101-2459
4 Telephone: (626) 535-1900
Facsimile: (626) 577-7764
5
Attorneys for Defendant Wachovia Mortgage, a
6 division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, successor by
merger to Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A., f/k/a
7 Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings
Bank, FSB (sued as Wachovia Mortgage, FSB and
8 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) (“Wells Fargo”)
9 Robert P. Gates (# 45210)
ERSKINE & TULLEY
10 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 315
11 San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 392-5431
12 Facsimile: (415) 392-1978
13 Attorneys for Plaintiff
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17
19
CASE NO.: 3:11-CV-01951-SC
The Honorable Samuel Conti
CYNTHIA M. CHANG,
18
Plaintiffs,
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND, THIRD,
FOURTH, AND FIFTH CLAIMS FOR
RELIEF
v.
20
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, a national
21 association; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a
national association; and DOES 1 through 50,
22 inclusive,
23
Defendants.
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1
D
CASE NO.: 3:11-CV-01951-SC
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS
1
Based on the stipulation entered into by and between plaintiff Cynthia Chang and defendant
2 Wachovia Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, successor by merger to Wells Fargo
3 Bank Southwest, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB (sued as
4 Wachovia Mortgage, FSB and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) (“Wells Fargo”) through their counsel of
5 record, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED:
6
1.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), the second claim for fraud, misrepresentation, and
7 reckless disregard and fourth claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code
9
2.
Wells Fargo shall file and serve its answer to the First Amended Complaint on or
10 before December 22, 2011.
11
UNIT
ED
S
12/8/11
RT
U
O
RED
14
RT
15
onti
amuel C
Judge S
FO
13
A
H
ER
16
R NIA
E
HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI
O ORD
IT IS S
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
LI
12 DATED:
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
NO
A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP
8 Section 17200 are dismissed with prejudice.
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
D
CASE NO.: 3:11-CV-01951-SC
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to this action. I
am employed in the City of Pasadena, California; my business address is Anglin, Flewelling,
3 Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten LLP, 199 S. Los Robles Avenue, Suite 600, Pasadena, California
91101-2459.
4
On December 8, 2011, I served a copy of the foregoing document entitled:
5
ORDER DISMISSING SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
6
on the interested parties in said case as follows:
7
Served Electronically Via the Court’s CM/ECF System
8
A NGLIN F LEWELLING R ASMUSSEN C AMPBELL & T RYTTEN LLP
2
Robert P. Gates
Erskine & Tulley, A Professional Corporation
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 315
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 392-5431 Fax: (415) 392-1978
Email: attgates@pacbell.net
Attorneys for
Plaintiff Cynthia Chang
9
10
11
12
13
14
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 office of a member of the Bar of
15
this Court, at whose direction the service was made. This declaration is executed in Pasadena,
16 California on December 8, 2011.
17
18
Kimberly Wooten
(Type or Print Name)
/s/ Kimberly Wooten
(Signature of Declarant)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-01951-SC
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?