Ambers et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Re: Dkt. No. 6 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
BRENT AMBERS, JUDITH AMBERS,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
WELLS FARGO’S MOTION TO
DISMISS
v.
12
13
Case No. 15-cv-04100 NC
14
WELLS FARGO BANK, HS FUNDING
GROUP; CAL WESTERN
RECONVEYANCE CORP.,
15
Defendants.
Re: Dkt. No. 6
16
Brent and Judith Ambers sue Wells Fargo and others for the foreclosure of their
17
18
home in 2012. This Court previously dismissed a similar case by Judith Ambers against
19
Wells Fargo in April 2014, after Judith Ambers chose not to amend her complaint. Now,
20
Wells Fargo moves to dismiss the 2015 case, arguing that the doctrine of res judicata bars
21
the Ambers from relitigating issues from the prior lawsuit. The Court agrees and finds that
22
res judicata bars the entire action against Wells Fargo. Thus, the Court GRANTS Wells
23
Fargo’s motion to dismiss.
24
25
26
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
2013 Lawsuit, No. 13-cv-03940 NC
On August 23, 2013, Judith Ambers sued Wells Fargo Bank in Alameda County
27
Superior Court, challenging a mortgage foreclosure on a 2006 loan taken out by her
28
husband Brent Ambers. Dkt. No. 1. Defendant Wells Fargo removed the case to federal
1
court, then moved to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. Nos. 1, 8. On March 3, 2014, the Court
2
granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, finding that Judith Ambers did not have standing
3
to sue, and in the alternative, that she failed to state a claim. Dkt. No. 25. The Court
4
permitted Ambers to amend the complaint by March 28, 2014. Dkt. No. 25. Ambers did
5
not amend the complaint. Dkt. No. 26. On April 21, 2014, the Court dismissed the case
6
with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. Dkt. Nos. 26, 27.
7
B.
Current Lawsuit
8
On May 20, 2015, Brent and Judith Ambers sued defendants Wells Fargo, HS
9
Funding Group, and Cal Western Reconveyance Corp. in Alameda County Superior Court.
Dkt. No. 1-1 at 6. On August 23, 2015, Wells Fargo timely removed the case to federal
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
court. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The Ambers sue regarding the loans on the same property as the
12
2013 suit. Dkt. Nos. 1-1 at 6. According to Wells Fargo, the Ambers defaulted on their
13
loan with Wells Fargo in 2009 and the bank foreclosed on the loan on January 24, 2012.
14
Dkt. No. 6 at 4. As a result, the property was sold to a third party and the deed transferring
15
title was recorded on February 9, 2012. Id. Wells Fargo is the only defendant that has
16
appeared in this action. Dkt. No. 1 at 3-4. On November 16, 2015, the Court ordered the
17
Ambers to show cause why it should not dismiss HS Funding Group and Cal Western
18
Reconveyance Corp. for failure to serve the defendants. Dkt. No. 24. The Ambers did not
19
file any proof of service, so the Court dismissed HS Funding Group and Cal Western
20
Reconveyance Corp. on December 7, 2015.
On September 16, 2015, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that
21
22
res judicata barred relitigation of the issues already decided in the 2013 case, and that the
23
statute of limitations has passed. Dkt. No. 6. Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo have consented to
24
the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt. Nos. 11, 21-22.
25 II.
26
DISCUSSION
Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, bars litigation in a subsequent action
27
of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action. W. Radio
28
Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997). “Res judicata prevents
2
1
litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the
2
parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding.”
3
Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131 (1979). Res judicata “has the dual purpose of
4
protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or
5
his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.” Parklane
6
Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 (1979).
7
In order for res judicata to apply there must be: (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final
8
judgment on the merits, and (3) identity or privity between parties. W. Radio Servs. Co.,
9
123 F.3d at 1192.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
i.
Identity of Claims
In determining whether successive claims constitute the same cause of action, the
12
Court considers (1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be
13
destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the
14
same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve
15
infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same
16
transactional nucleus of facts. Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02
17
(9th Cir. 1982). “The last of these criteria is the most important.” Id. at 1202. The Ninth
18
Circuit has found that satisfaction of the fourth factor alone is sufficient to establish an
19
identity of claims. See Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs-Employers Constr. Indus. Pension,
20
Welfare and Training Trust Funds v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing
21
cases finding successive claims barred by res judicata based only on analysis of the fourth
22
factor).
23
“[I]dentity of claims exists when two suits arise from the same transactional nucleus
24
of facts. Newly articulated claims based on the same nucleus of facts may still be subject
25
to a res judicata finding if the claims could have been brought in the earlier action.”
26
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1078
27
(9th Cir. 2003). If claims are related to the same set of facts and could be conveniently
28
tried together, then there is identity of claims. Karr, 994 F.2d at 1429; see also Herrera v.
3
1
Countrywide KB Home Loans, No. 11-cv-03591 LHK, 2012 WL 901340, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
2
Mar. 15, 2012) (finding that when if plaintiff could have amended the prior complaint to
3
allege the successive claims, then identity of claims exists).
In the prior lawsuit, Judith Ambers brought seven claims regarding the origination
4
5
and eventual foreclosure of the home loan against Wells Fargo. Dkt. No. 6 at 6; 2013 Dkt.
6
No. 1 at 21-37. The current lawsuit presents twelve claims, all of which relate to the same
7
loan and foreclosure. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5-28. Although the current complaint alleges more
8
claims, both lawsuits arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact: the issuance and
9
foreclosure of the same home loan. The second complaint does not contain new facts, nor
does it refer to events that occurred after the 2013 lawsuit was dismissed. The Ambers’
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
opposition to Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss did not address the issue of whether this
12
lawsuit is about a different nucleus of facts.
The Court has reviewed the complaint and finds that the two lawsuits arise out of
13
14
the same nucleus of facts, and all of the additional causes of action present in the 2015
15
lawsuit could have been filed as part of an amended complaint to the 2013 lawsuit. For the
16
same reasons, both lawsuits would require substantially the same evidence and
17
infringement of the same right. Thus, the first element of the res judicata test is satisfied.
18
ii.
Final Judgment on the Merits
19
“The dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is
20
a judgment on the merits.” Federated Dep’t Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981). In the
21
2013 lawsuit, the Court entered judgment in favor of Wells Fargo and against plaintiff in
22
accordance with its April 2014 order dismissing the action. 2013 Dkt. No. 27. The Court found
23
that Judith Ambers lacked standing because the loan was in Brent Ambers name, who was not a
24
party to the 2013 litigation. The Court determined that even if Judith Ambers had standing, she
25
failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 2013 Dkt. No. 25.
26
Therefore, there was a judgment on the merits in the 2013 case, and the second element of the res
27
judicata test is satisfied.
28
/
4
iii.
1
Identity or Privity Between Parties
2
Finally, the Court must consider whether there is identity or privity of parties in the two
3
actions. Privity exists when a party is “so identified in interest with a party to former litigation
4
that he represents precisely the same right in respect to the subject matter involved.” Stratosphere
5
Litig. LLC v. Grand Casinos, Inc., 298 F.3d 1137, 1142 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, Judith Ambers filed the 2013 first lawsuit, while both Judith and Brent Ambers filed
6
7
the 2015 lawsuit. However, the Court dismissed the first case in part, because it determined that
8
Judith Ambers did not have standing to assert the claims about a fraudulent loan and unlawful
9
foreclosure when Brent Ambers was the sole borrower of the loan. Thus, the Ambers share the
same legal interest in recovering for an allegedly improper loan and foreclosure on the same
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
property as listed in the 2013 case. The Court finds that the plaintiffs are in privity.
In addition, Wells Fargo was named as a defendant in both the 2013 and 2015 lawsuits. In
12
13
the 2015 lawsuit, HS Funding Group and Cal Western Reconveyance Corp. were added as
14
additional parties; however, the Court has already dismissed those defendants from the case.
15
Thus, the same defendant is in both lawsuits, so the third element of the res judicata test is met.
16
Accordingly, the Court finds that the 2015 lawsuit presents an identify of claims,
17
there was a final judgment on the merits in the 2013 lawsuit, and there is privity between
18
the parties. W. Radio Servs. Co., 123 F.3d at 1192. Therefore, the Ambers’ claims are
19
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
20
///
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1
2
3
III.
CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that the doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of this lawsuit.
4
The Court GRANTS Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss and DIMISSES the complaint
5
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 8, 2015
_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge
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
28
6
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
BRENT AMBERS, et al.,
Case No. 15-cv-04100-NC
Plaintiffs,
6
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
7
8
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
12
13
14
15
16
That on December 8, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
17
18
19
20
Brent Ambers
Judith E. Ambers
c/o Aegis Mailing, Facsimile and Copy Services
2287 Washington Avenue
San Leandro, CA 94577-5917
21
22
Dated: December 8, 2015
23
24
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
25
26
27
28
By:________________________
Lili Harrell, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
7
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?