Lamirande v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/9/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 MICHELE E. LAMIRANDE, Plaintiff, v. 13 14 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 15 No. C 12-05520 RS Defendant. ____________________________________/ 16 17 Plaintiff Michele E. Lamirande, appearing in pro se, alleges that defendant Wells Fargo 18 Bank participated in a so-called “liar’s loan enterprise,” a subset of the national subprime mortgage 19 industry, “including all of the top executives of the top subprime mortgage originators, the top 20 subprime mortgage-backed securities issuers, the top subprime mortgage servicers, the national 21 appraisal management companies, the nationwide network of mortgage brokers, certain institutional 22 investors, and the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Chairman Ben Bernanke.” 23 Lamirande contends these individuals and entities all “played a significant role in the creation of 24 millions of predatory loans originated nationwide between the years 1997 and 2008.” Lamirande’s 25 theory is that this “enterprise” systematically utilized falsely inflated appraisals of residential 26 properties to originate mortgage loans with misleading loan-to-value ratios. Based on these 27 allegations, Lamirande asserts a single count against Wells Fargo under the Racketeering Influenced 28 Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). 1 Defendant Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss the original complaint, which Lamirande did not 2 oppose, was granted, with leave to amend. Wells Fargo now moves to dismiss the amended 3 complaint, and Lamirande again has filed no opposition. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the 4 matter has been submitted without oral argument. 5 The motion is granted. The changes made in the amended complaint have done nothing of 6 substance to cure the defects identified in the prior order. Lamirande’s failure to oppose dismissal 7 further supports the conclusion that no viable claim exists. Under the circumstances, further leave 8 to amend is not warranted. The action is dismissed and the Clerk shall close the file. 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 15 16 Dated: 5/9/13 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 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?