Arteaga et al v. Wells Fargo, N.A., et al

Filing 30

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti denying without prejudice 15 Motion to Dismiss. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

JOSE M. ARTEAGA and MARIA D.
ARTEAGA,

7

Plaintiffs,

8
v.
10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

11

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a/k/a
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, REGIONAL
TRUSTEE SERVICES CORPORATION, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

12
Defendants.

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-1370-SC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS

14
15

Now before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s

16

("Wells") Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs

17

Jose M. and Maria D. Arteaga ("Plaintiffs").

18

14 ("Am. Compl.").

19

("Regional") joins in Wells's motion.

20

fully briefed.

21

ECF Nos. 15 ("Mot."),

Defendant Regional Trustee Service Corporation
ECF No. 17.

The motion is

ECF Nos. 19 ("Opp'n"), 20 ("Reply").

The motion was set for hearing on June 22, 2012.

On June 18,

22

2012, the Court approved a stipulation signed by Wells, Regional,

23

and Plaintiffs, opting to participate in an alternative dispute

24

resolution ("ADR") process, specifically, court-sponsored

25

mediation.

26

parties until September 18, 2012 to complete the mediation.

27

id. (setting deadline of ninety days following signature date of

28

order).

ECF No. 26 ("ADR Order").

The ADR Order gave the
See

On June 20, 2012, the Court vacated the June 22 hearing.

The purpose of mediation is to explore and, if possible,

1
2

achieve a compromise settlement.

3

The Ninth Circuit is firmly committed to the rule that
the law favors and encourages compromise settlements.
There is an overriding public interest in settling and
quieting litigation.
It is well recognized that
settlement agreements are judicially favored as a matter
of sound public policy.
Settlement agreements conserve
judicial time and limit expensive litigation.

4
5
6
7

Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988)

8

(internal quotation marks, citations, brackets omitted).

9

of these policies, the Court is reluctant to rule on a dispositive

In view

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

motion while the parties are engaging, or about to engage, in

11

mediation.

12

possibility of voluntary resolution of this matter without coercive

13

intervention by the Court.

14

economy counsels the Court to avoid devoting resources to deciding

15

a dispositive motion when the parties have selected an ADR process

16

which, if successful, will result in voluntary dismissal of the

17

case.

18

narrow or reframe the issues of the case such that the motion now

19

before the Court becomes partly or even wholly moot.

20

First, mediation, like ADR generally, holds out the

Second, the principle of judicial

Even if mediation does not result in settlement, it may

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Wells's motion to dismiss

21

without prejudice.

22

Wells has leave to re-notice the motion at a

later date.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: July 23, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

2