Seata Vai et al v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association et al

Filing 56

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting in part 49 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and granting 53 Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) Request. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Golden West. As to Wells Fargo, the Court defers a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs shall have until January 15, 2014, to complete the permitted discovery. The December 19, 2013, hearing is VACATED. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

VANCAMP SEATA VAI, et al.,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C-13-0294 EMC

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

13

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 56(D)
REQUEST
(Docket Nos. 49, 53)

___________________________________/
14
15
16

Previously, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended Rule 56(d) request because their

17

prior request had been deficient (e.g., it failed to identify what discovery Plaintiffs needed to take to

18

oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment). See Docket No. 52 (Order at 2). Plaintiffs

19

have now filed their amended Rule 56(d) request, and Defendants have filed a response thereto.

20

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court hereby rules as follows.

21

Defendants argue that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) request because the

22

information sought through Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery “‘is almost certainly nonexistent or is the

23

object of pure speculation.’” Reply at 3. While the Court is not without some sympathy for

24

Defendants’ position, it shall not at this time dismiss Wells Fargo. Rather, the Court concludes that

25

Plaintiffs should be allowed to take either a deposition of Michael Dolan or a 30(b)(6) deposition of

26

Wells Fargo in order to test the claims made in the declaration of Mr. Dolan, which was tendered in

27

support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are permitted to

28

propound document requests on Wells Fargo as requested – i.e., communications and documents

1

from Wells Fargo (or World Savings or Wachovia) to Plaintiffs between September 1, 2010, to July

2

31, 2012, regarding “preforeclosure contacts or attempted contacts with [P]laintiffs pertaining to

3

their mortgage loan; that is, any and all contacts related to assessing and exploring alternatives to

4

foreclosure prior to the recording of a Notice of Default.” Docket No. 53 (Paris Decl. at 3).

5

Interrogatories, however, shall not be permitted.

6

While the Court, for the foregoing reasons, shall not rule on the summary judgment motion

7

as to Wells Fargo, it concludes that summary judgment in favor of Golden West is proper at this

8

time. Although Golden West may have been involved with the issuance of the notice of default, see

9

Dolan Decl., Exs. P-Q (documents reflecting that Cal-Western was not substituted as trustee until
July 30, 2012, i.e., two days after the notice of default was signed and that Cal-Western could have

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

signed the notice of default as “agent for the trustee”), there is nothing to indicate that Golden West

12

is the trustee for the deed of trust today. Indeed, it appears undisputed that Cal-Western is the

13

current trustee. See Compl. ¶¶ 7-8. That being the case, even if Plaintiffs were to prevail on their

14

sole claim for relief pursuant to California Civil Code § 2923.5, the only remedy they could obtain

15

would be “a simple postponement of the foreclosure sale, nothing more,” Mabry v. Superior Court,

16

185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 214 (2010), and an injunction postponing the foreclosure sale would only

17

have relevance for Cal-Western as the current trustee (and Wells Fargo as the lender), not Golden

18

West as the former trustee.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS in part the motion for summary judgment.

2

Summary judgment in favor of Golden West is proper. As to Wells Fargo, the Court DEFERS a

3

ruling on the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs shall have until January 15, 2014, to

4

complete the discovery permitted above. By January 30, 2014, Plaintiffs shall file their opposition

5

to Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment. By February 6, 2014, Wells Fargo shall file its

6

reply. The December 19, 2013, hearing is VACATED. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the

7

Court shall determine whether a hearing is necessary.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: November 26, 2013

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3