Roland et al v. Wachovia Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 31

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 19 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and Finding as Moot 20 Defendant's Motion to Strike. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ARTHUR W. ROLAND, et al., 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-11-6206 EMC Plaintiffs, v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND FINDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE MOOT 12 Defendants. (Docket Nos. 19-20) 13 ___________________________________/ 14 15 16 Plaintiffs Arthur W. Roland and Michele R. Roland have filed suit against Defendants 17 Wachovia Mortgage Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asserting claims based on a home 18 loan entered into in or about January 2008. Currently pending before the Court are two motions 19 filed by Wells Fargo: (1) a motion to dismiss and (2) a motion to strike. Wells Fargo is filing the 20 motion on its own behalf and as successor to Wachovia Mortgage, FSB. See Docket No. 19 (Mot. at 21 1). Having considered the parties’ briefs, as well as the oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby 22 GRANTS the motion to dismiss and finds the motion to strike moot. 23 With respect to the motion to dismiss, the Court agrees with Wells Fargo that all of 24 Plaintiffs’ claims -- except for part of their claim for breach of contract -- are subject to claim 25 preclusion. More specifically, Plaintiffs’ claims challenging the failure to disclose are all covered 26 by the release in Mandrigues v. World Savings, Inc., No. C-07-4497 JF. Plaintiffs conceded as 27 much, both in their papers and at the hearing. Accordingly, for these claims, the Court grants the 28 motion to dismiss with prejudice. 1 The only claim not precluded is that part of the breach-of-contract claim in which Plaintiffs 2 allege that Defendants failed to process a loan modification application under HAMP and 3 Defendants’ own proprietary guidelines as Defendants had promised they would. However, 4 dismissal of this claim is still warranted because Plaintiffs have failed to provide sufficient 5 information about agreement, including but not limited to its terms. Accordingly, the Court grants 6 the motion to dismiss as to this claim but without prejudice. Plaintiffs have leave to amend their 7 complaint by April 9, 2012. In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs should clarify whether the 8 agreement was oral or written, provide detail as to the terms of the agreement, and provide 9 information as to the consideration given. Plaintiffs are permitted to plead claims in addition to the 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 claim for breach of contract so long as they are based on the same underlying facts. As for Wells Fargo’s motion to strike, it is essentially moot. Plaintiffs effectively dropped 12 all of their tort claims based on the alleged failure to disclose, including but not limited to the claim 13 for negligent infliction of emotional distress. 14 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 19 and 20. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: March 12, 2012 19 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?