Vargas et al v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 53

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING re 48 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JUAN VARGAS AND HILDA VARGAS,
Plaintiffs,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No. C 12-02008 WHA
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AKA
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AND F/K/A
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE FSB, FORMERLY
KNOWN AS WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB,
AS BENEFICIARY; CAL-WESTERN
RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION, a
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION and all persons
claiming by, through, or under such entities or
persons; and all persons unknown, claiming any
legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or
interest in the real property described in the
complaint adverse to Plaintiffs title thereto, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

ORDER REQUIRING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Defendants.
/

20
21

At oral argument, the parties were instructed to concurrently file mandatory supplemental

22

briefs regarding several under-developed issues in their briefing. The supplemental briefs should

23

address the following:

24
25
26
27
28

(1) The decisional law, both under state and federal, regarding whether rescission is the
exclusive remedy for violation of California Civil Code Section 1632.
(2) The legislative history of Section 1632 and whether or not the legislative history
answers the above question regarding exclusive remedy.

1

(3) The general manner in which state courts, meaning the California Court of Appeal or

2

California Supreme Court, have treated the situation we have here, where a statute provides a

3

permissive remedy and is otherwise silent as to whether there are other remedies.

4
5
6
7
8
9

under the law to effectuate tender.
(5) The effect, if any, the foreclosure sale has on the Section 1632 claim. Please provide
information as to whether the foreclosure sale occurred before or after the lawsuit was filed.
(6) The history of the property in relation to the plaintiffs, including the financial history
of the loans and payments made on those loans.
The parties must submit the supplemental briefs by NOVEMBER 2 at NOON. Either side

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(4) Whether plaintiffs are prepared to tender, and the amount that would be required

may, but is not required to, file a reply brief that is limited to three pages. The deadline for filing

12

the reply brief is NOVEMBER 5 at NOON.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: October 25, 2012

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2