Choudhuri v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
174
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 2/28/2018. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2018)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KABITA CHOUDHURI,
Case No. 15-cv-03608-VC
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
WELLS FARGO'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 155, 166
Well Fargo's motion for summary judgment is granted and Kabita Choudhuri's motion for
summary judgment is denied. Choudhuri has not provided evidence to create a genuine dispute
of material fact that would preclude summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo.1
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
First, Choudhuri alleges that Wells Fargo violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act ("RESPA") by failing to respond to her request for information about her loan. Choudhuri is
correct that her March 1, 2015 letter to Wells Fargo constituted a qualified written request under
RESPA because it provided sufficient detail about the information she sought and explained that
she thought computing errors had led to mistakes in the loan accounting. 12 U.S.C. §
2605(e)(1)-(2); see Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 704 F.3d 661, 666 (9th Cir. 2012).
However, Wells Fargo has presented evidence of having met its RESPA obligations with respect
to her request: on March 3, Wells Fargo acknowledged receipt of Choudhuri's letter; on March
16, Wells Fargo informed Choudhuri that it would act by March 30; and on March 25, Wells
1
Wells Fargo's request for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 166-2), which encompasses court dockets,
court filings, and publicly recorded documents, is granted. Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Fargo sent Choudhuri a detailed response to her letter. Smith Decl. Exs. Y-AA (Dkt. No. 166-1).
In response, Choudhuri says that she did not receive this March 25th letter. Vukovic Decl. Ex. A
(Dkt. No. 166-3) at 268:8-21. However, even if this were enough to create a genuine fact issue
(which it probably does not), Choudhuri's claim fails because she has not presented evidence that
she suffered damages as a result of Wells Fargo's alleged lack of response to her qualified written
requests. Choudhuri's screenshot of her rejected application for an energy savings program (with
no established connection to this loan) is not enough to create a genuine dispute of fact as to
whether she sustained actual damages as a result of the alleged RESPA violation. Nor has she
presented evidence that any increased loan payments were proximately caused by Wells Fargo's
allegedly incomplete or missing responses to her qualified written requests. See Banares v.
Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 681 Fed App'x 638, 641 (9th Cir. 2017); Tamburri v. Suntrust Mortgage,
Inc., 875 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1014-15 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Nor has Choudhuri presented evidence of
a pattern or practice of noncompliance by Wells Fargo that would permit damages. 12 U.S.C. §
2605(f)(1)(B).
The claim based on the later letter fares no better. Choudhuri's letter to Wells Fargo on
April 12, 2015 was no more than a copy of her March 1st letter with a handwritten note stating
that she had not received a response. (In fact, the April 12th correspondence still had the
typewritten March 1st date on it.) Smith Decl. Ex. BB. In light of Wells Fargo's response to her
identical letter from the previous month, it appears that Wells Fargo met its obligation to respond
to her qualified written request. But even if Wells Fargo should have separately responded to her
April 12th letter, Choudhuri's claim fails because she has not presented evidence of damages
suffered as a result of Wells Fargo not replying to her second request.
Choudhuri's second claim under RESPA is that Wells Fargo did not satisfy its obligation
to protect her credit rating while her qualified written request was pending. However, Choudhuri
has not presented any evidence to support her claim that Wells Fargo improperly reported her
mortgage during the 60-day period after receiving her qualified written request. 12 U.S.C. §
2605(e)(3). As a result, Wells Fargo prevails on summary judgment on both RESPA claims.
2
Homeowner Bill of Rights
Choudhuri's claims under the Homeowner Bill of Rights ("HBOR") do not survive
summary judgment either. First, Choudhuri fails to present evidence that contradicts Wells
Fargo's showing that it complied with its obligation to provide a single point of contact. The
statute permits the servicer to appoint a team of individuals and does not prevent the servicer
from replacing the contact over time. Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.7; Hild v. Bank of America, N.A.,
No. EDCV 14-2126 JGB (SPx), 2015 WL 1813571, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015). Nor has
Choudhuri provided evidence that the purported violation of the single point of contact provision
caused actual economic damages. Crumley v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 5:17-cv07144-HRL, 2018 WL 984864, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2018); Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo
NA, No. 13-cv-01457-JCS, 2014 WL 688124, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2014).
Choudhuri's dual tracking claim also does not succeed. Choudhuri sent her initial loan
modification application to Wells Fargo in January 2015. It was denied on April 8, 2015 and
April 14, 2015, and her appeal was denied on May 19, 2015. Even though the notice of default
was recorded on April 2, 2015, it was rescinded on October 1, 2015. Smith Decl. Exs. E, M, N,
Q; Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice, Exs. U-W. Therefore, any alleged violation of the
HBOR prohibition on dual tracking, as it was written at the time, was rendered moot by Wells
Fargo rescinding the notice of sale. Tuan Anh Le v. Bank of New York Mellon, 152 F. Supp. 3d
1200, 1214-15 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.12); Monterossa v. Superior Court
of Sacramento County, 188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 457-58 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). Choudhuri also
points to her renewed loan modification application on June 22, 2015, in which she claimed a
material change in her finances. But Wells Fargo's rescission of the notice of sale applies to any
dual tracking claim based on her later loan modification application as well. Moreover,
Choudhuri does not provide evidence of having sent Wells Fargo new financial information in
support of her renewed loan modification application, so Choudhuri cannot succeed on a claim
for dual tracking on that basis. Salazar v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. ED CV 14-514GHK (DTBx), 2015 WL 1542908, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015).
3
Promissory Estoppel & Negligence
Choudhuri's lack of evidence also defeats her other claims. Her claim for promissory
estoppel is premised on her allegation that Wells Fargo employee Treena Berlinsky promised her
in early January 2015 that her loan modification would be approved if there were a second
income to support her household. However, Choudhuri has not submitted evidence that the
promise was sufficiently definite to support a promissory estoppel claim. To be enforceable, the
promise must be "definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty, and the limits
of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide a rational basis for the assessment of
damages." Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683, 696 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Without adequate evidence of what obligations the parties
agreed to, it is not possible to assess whether they satisfied those obligations. See id.2 And even
if Berlinsky made a sufficiently definite promise, Choudhuri has not presented evidence
sufficient to create a genuine fact issue about whether her reliance on the promise was reasonable
and foreseeable. See Advanced Choices, Inc. v. Dep't of Health Services, 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 470,
479 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1981).
As to negligence, even assuming Wells Fargo had a duty of care, Choudhuri has not
presented evidence that her increased loan payments were proximately caused by Wells Fargo
breaching such a duty of care. See Thomas v. Stenberg, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 24, 29 (Cal. Ct. App.
2012).
Therefore, Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment is granted as to all of the
remaining claims, and Choudhuri's motion for summary judgment is denied.
2
In fact, Wells Fargo presents evidence that such a promise may never have been made at all.
For instance, Berlinsky does not appear to have been the point of contact for Choudhuri in
January 2015; rather, it seems Berlinsky was not assigned to Choudhuri's case until nearly two
months later. Smith Decl. Exs. F, U, W. What's more, at his deposition, Choudhuri's witness
Ronjon Sen, could not recall the contents of the alleged phone conversation with Berlinsky (for
which he was purportedly present) or the declaration that he provided after the fact. Vukovic
Decl. Ex. B (Dkt. No. 166-3).
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2018
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge
5
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?