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)

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