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

Filing 26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/6/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM E. HAMMONS,

Case No. 15-cv-04897-RS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

9
10

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

In this action, borrowers William E. Hammons and Gwendolyn M. Bridges raise a host of

14

state law violations stemming from the foreclosure sale of their home. Defendants Wells Fargo

15

Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and NDeX West, LLC (“NDeX”) moved to dismiss the original

16

complaint on October 30, 2015. Dkt. No. 6. That motion was granted with leave to amend on

17

December 18, 2015. Dkt. No. 12. The first amended complaint (“FAC”) was filed on January 19,

18

2016, and defendants moved to dismiss for a second time two weeks later. Dkt. Nos. 17–18. The

19

motion to dismiss the FAC was granted with leave to amend on March 4, 2016. Dkt. No. 25. The

20

order dismissing the FAC held any amended complaint must include factual allegations sufficient

21

to support the reasonable inference that Wells Fargo did not acquire plaintiffs’ loan through its

22

merger with World Savings. It also directed plaintiffs to file an amended pleading within thirty

23

days of the date of the order, provided they could do so in good faith. The deadline for filing a

24

second amended complaint has now come and gone (and then some). As plaintiffs have not filed

25

an amended pleading, this action is dismissed with prejudice.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1
2
3

Dated: April 6, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
<< SHORT ORDER TITLE >>
CASE NO. 15-cv-04897-RS

28
2