Church v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIMS; REMANDING STATE LAW CLAIMS. The Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Causes of Action are dismissed without leave to amend. To the extent the Third and Fifteenth Causes of Act ion include a claim pursuant to HAMP, the Third and Fifteenth Causes of Action are dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff's remaining claims are remanded to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Humboldt. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 6, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/6/2013: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

LISA A. CHURCH,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C-13-0166 MMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS;
DISMISSING FEDERAL CLAIMS;
REMANDING STATE LAW CLAIMS

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint, filed January 18, 2013.

18

Plaintiff Lisa A. Church has not filed opposition. Having read and considered the papers

19

filed in support of the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon,

20

VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 15, 2013, and rules as follows:

21

1. To the extent the Third Cause of Action, titled “Failure of Good Faith and Fair

22

Dealing, Unfair and Unacceptable Loan Servicing,” includes a claim that defendants

23

violated the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) (see Compl. ¶¶ 87,

24

89, 97), the Third Cause of Action is subject to dismissal for the reason that no private

25

cause of action exists under HAMP. See Miller v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 677 F.3d

26

1113, 1116 (11h Cir. 2012) (holding “it is clear no implied right of action exists” under

27

HAMP); Marks v. Bank of America, N.A., 2010 WL 2572988, *6 (D. Ariz. 2010) (holding that

28

because Congress, in enacting HAMP, delegated “compliance authority” to “one entity,

1
2

Freddie Mac, Congress intended that a private cause of action was not permitted”).
2. The Sixth Cause of Action, titled “HUD Violations” and by which plaintiff alleges

3

defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) has violated the National Housing Act

4

(“NHA”), is subject to dismissal for the reason that no private cause of action exists under

5

the NHA. See Castrillo v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 516,

6

526 (E.D. La. 2009) (holding Congress did not intend to create private cause of action

7

under NHA; collecting cases so holding).

8

3. The Seventh Cause of Action, titled “Breach of Contract” and by which plaintiff

9

alleges Wells Fargo has failed to comply with certain obligations owed to the United States

10

under the “Servicer Participation Agreement” (“SPA”), is subject to dismissal for the reason

11

that “individual borrowers do not have standing to sue under the SPA because they are not

12

intended third party beneficiaries.” See Lucia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 798 F. Supp. 2d

13

1059, 1070-71 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (collecting cases so holding).

14

4. The Tenth Cause of Action, titled “Failure to Condition Precedent” and by which

15

plaintiff alleges Wells Fargo has failed to comply with federal regulations enacted pursuant

16

to the NHA, is subject to dismissal. As stated above, no private cause exists under the

17

NHA, and, as courts likewise have held, no private cause of action exists under the federal

18

regulations enacted pursuant to the NHA. See Inman v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., 2010 WL

19

3516309 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (collecting cases so holding).

20

5. To the extent the Fifteenth Cause of Action, titled “Declaratory Relief,” is based

21

on a claim that plaintiff is entitled to relief under HAMP (see Compl. ¶ 185), the Fifteenth

22

Cause of Action is subject to dismissal for the reason that, as stated above, no private

23

cause of action exists under HAMP.

24

6. Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action arise under state law, and, because

25

defendants do not allege the parties are diverse in citizenship,1 the Court’s jurisdiction over

26

the state law claims is supplemental in nature. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Where, as here,

27
1

28

On January 11, 2013, defendants filed a Notice of Removal, asserting therein the
district court has federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint.
2

1

a court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to

2

exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Here, given the early

3

stage of the proceedings, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

4

state law claims. Accordingly, the remaining claims will be remanded to state court.2
CONCLUSION

5
6

For the reasons stated above:

7

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED in part, as follows:
a. The Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Causes of Action are hereby DISMISSED

8
9

without leave to amend.
b. To the extent the Third and Fifteenth Causes of Action include a claim

10
11

pursuant to HAMP, the Third and Fifteenth Causes of Action are hereby DISMISSED

12

without leave to amend.

13
14
15

2. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of
California, in and for the County of Humboldt.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: March 6, 2013

/s/ Susan Illston for
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27
28

On March 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a letter, in which she states a trustee’s sale for the
subject property has been scheduled for March 21, 2013. Plaintiff is advised that, in light of
the remand of the remaining claims, she should seek any appropriate relief from the state
court.
3