Atienza et al v. Wells Fargo et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 8 Defendant Wells Fargo's Motion to Dismiss. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ALICIA G. ATIENZA, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
WELLS FARGO’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-3153 EMC

WELLS FARGO, et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 8)
13
14
15

Defendant Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on July 20, 2011.

16

Docket No. 8. Defendant argued that the complaint was unintelligible and failed to state a claim

17

against any defendant, and to the extent the subject matter of the complaint was discernable, it was

18

barred by res judicata.

19

The Court, having considered the parties’ submissions and Defendant’s request for judicial

20

notice, determines that the matters are appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and

21

VACATES the hearing set for September 8, 2011. The Court hereby enters the following order:

22

(1)

Defendant Wells Fargo’s request for judicial notice (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED.

23

The documents are undisputed matters of public record. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; see also Camacho v.

24

Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, No. 09-CV-1572 JLS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102243, at *4 (S.D. Cal.

25

Nov. 3, 2009) (taking judicial notice of the same documents as Exhibits A-D here).

26

(2)

Plaintiffs’ complaint is unintelligible and fails to articulate a cognizable claim against

27

any defendant. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (“[A] complaint must contain

28

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”)

1

(internal quotations omitted). This complaint falls well short of this benchmark. In addition, the

2

only indication of the subject matter of the complaint are Plaintiffs’ exhibits: the deed of trust and

3

notice of trustee’s sale for the same subject property that was at issue between the parties in Atienza

4

v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 10-03457 RS, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22592 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7,

5

2011), which Judge Seeborg dismissed with prejudice. Thus, the current action concerns the “same

6

transactional nucleus of fact” as litigated in the prior matter, and therefore any attempt to amend the

7

pleadings would be futile because the suit is barred by res judicata. Int’l Union v. Karr, 994 F.2d

8

1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss

9

without leave to amend, and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
This disposes of Docket No. 8.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: September 2, 2011

15
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2