Best-Santos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 2/25/2016. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/11/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BARBARA BEST-SANTOS, Case No. 15-cv-02323-RS Plaintiff, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 13 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 Shortly after the pending motion to dismiss in this action was filed, the parties filed a 17 stipulation to defer further briefing. In that stipulation, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 18 represented to the court that (1) “in-house counsel for the bank authorized a loan modification 19 review for the subject loan,” (2) “[t]he outcome of a modification review may resolve some or all 20 the issues in this litigation,” and (3) “[g]iven that Wells Fargo shall be conducting a loan 21 modification review, the sale on the subject property shall be continued . . . .” 22 Subsequently, however, Wells Fargo asserted in a Case Management Conference 23 Statement that “obstacles had arisen” and that it wished to proceed with the motion to dismiss in 24 lieu of conducting a loan modification review. Whether Wells Fargo had any independent legal 25 obligation to consider plaintiff for a loan modification/assumption prior to the initiation of this 26 action is a contested issue, subject to resolution at a later juncture. At this point the concern is that 27 Wells Fargo entered into judicial stipulation, adopted by court order, in which it undertook to 28 engage in the loan modification review process. To be excused from that commitment, Wells 1 2 Fargo must provide a more fulsome explanation of any circumstances constituting good cause. Accordingly, the hearing date on the pending motion to dismiss is continued to March 3, 3 2016. No later than February 25, 2016, Wells Fargo shall file a declaration or declarations setting 4 forth the reasons it contends it must or should be released from its commitment to offer plaintiff a 5 loan modification review. In the alternative, Wells Fargo may file a notice that it will proceed 6 with loan modification review, in which case the parties should stipulate to such further 7 continuances of the hearing date and any foreclosure sale date as may be necessary to permit loan 8 modification review to be completed. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dated: February 11, 2016 ______________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 2 15-cv-02323-RS

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?