Leonard Cisneros et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 45

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 18 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LEONARD G CISNEROS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.

9

(Re: Docket No. 18)

10

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:16-cv-00084-PSG

12
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moves to dismiss Plaintiffs Leonard G. Cisneros and

13
14

Gretel R. Cisneros’ first amended complaint.1 Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED,

15

with leave to amend.2

16

The heart of Plaintiffs’ allegations is they and Wells Fargo had a deal, and Wells Fargo

17

didn’t hold up its side of the bargain. Plaintiffs allege that pursuant to a settlement agreement,

18

they submitted a loan modification application to Wells Fargo, and Wells Fargo never sent them

19

an “actual final written determination of eligibility for this modification.”3 But Wells Fargo has

20

submitted copies of letters that it sent to Plaintiffs denying their loan modification application,

21

however,4 and Plaintiffs agree that the court can consider these documents.5 The letters indicate

22
1

23

See Docket No. 18.

2

24
25
26
27
28

Dismissal without leave to amend is only appropriate if it is clear that the complaint could not be
saved by amendment. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.
2003).
3

Docket No. 15 at ¶ 22.

4

See Docket No. 19-1 at Ex. B.
1

Case No. 5:16-cv-00084-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

1

that Wells Fargo reviewed and denied both Plaintiffs’ loan modification application and also

2

Plaintiffs’ appeal from that denial.
At a hearing today, Plaintiffs did not deny receiving the letters, but argued that the letters

3
4

are insufficient because they do not comply with the content requirements for a “final written

5

determination.” Plaintiffs did not allege that in their first amended complaint, however. Because

6

the letters show that the Plaintiffs were notified in writing of their ineligibility for a loan

7

modification, Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, with leave to amend. Any amended

8

complaint shall be filed within 30 days.

9

SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: May 10, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

5

Plaintiffs initially opposed Wells Fargo’s request for judicial notice of the letters, but agreed at
oral argument that the court could consider them. See Docket Nos. 32, 44.
2
Case No. 5:16-cv-00084-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS