Rose v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB et al

Filing 79

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 70 Ex Parte Application for Leave to take Expedited Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 12/4/12. (cge)

Download PDF
1 2 12 DEC -4 3 PH~: 17 1 COllRT C 1~\ t iF UrUll.·, 4 OEPUTY 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCELLA ROSE, an individual 12 CASE NO. 3:11-cv-00240-AJB (KSC) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EXPEDITED DISCOVERY Plaintiff, vs. 13 14 15 16 17 18 SEAMLESS FINANCIAL CORPORAnON, INC., a Nevada Corporation; MICHAEL MCDEVITT, an individual; CHAD HAGOBIAN, an individual; JEAN-PIERRE RADTKE, an individual; PREMIERE CAPITAL ESCROW, INC., a California Corporation; LUIS ANTONIO VENEGAS, an individual; and DOES 1-100, [Doc. No. 70.] Defendants. 19 20 Before the Court is plaintiff s ex parte motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 26(f)(1), to conduct limited discovery. For the reasons outlined below, plaintiffs Ex Parte Application 22 is GRANTED. 23 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 24 Marcella Rose is a 91-year-old woman residing in San Diego, California. The present action 25 was originally filed on December 29, 2010 in state court against defendants Wachovia, Wells Fargo 1, 26 27 28 1 Wells Fargo brought the motion individually and on behalfofWachovia as their predecessor in interest. All further references will be solely to Wells Fargo. - 1- II-cv-00240-Al8(KSC) 1 Seamless, McDevitt, and Hagobian. [Doc. No.1-I.] The Complaint contained six causes of action 2 alleging violations of: (1) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 ("'RESPA"); 3 (2) the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 ("FDCPA"); (3) the California 4 Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, CaL Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq. ("Rosenthal Act"); 5 (4) Unfair Competition provisions under California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. 6 ("UCL"); (5) common law provisions against fraud and deceit; and (6) the Elder Abuse and Dependent 7 Adult Civil Protection Act, Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.30 (the "Elder Abuse Act"). The 8 first, second, and third causes ofaction were alleged solely against Wells Fargo, whereas the remaining 9 state law causes of action were alleged against all defendants. 10 On February 4,2011, defendants removed this action to federal court on the basis of federal 11 question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims. [Doc. No.1.] 12 On February 11,2011, defendant Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, [Doc. No.2.], 13 which was subsequently denied as moot after plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("'FAC") on 14 March 4, 2011. [Doc. No. 7.]2 Thereafter, on March 18, 2011, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss 15 plaintiff's FAC. [Doc. No. 13.] On May 25,2011, plaintiff and Hagobian filed ajoint motion for an 16 extension of time for Hagobian to respond to the FAC. [Doc. No. 23.] While Wells Fargo's motion 17 to dismiss was pending, Wells Fargo and Wachovia entered into a good faith settlement with plaintiff. 18 [Doc. No. 32.] The settlement was approved by the Court on March 2,2012. [Doc. No. 50.] The 19 federal causes of action alleged against Wells Fargo were subsequently dismissed. [Doc. No. 56.] 20 Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on April 2, 2012. [Doc. No. 53.] The 21 SAC alleged four causes ofaction, including violations of: (1) the Elder Abuse Act; (2) common law 22 provisions against fraud and deceit; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; and (4) unlawful, unfair, and 23 deceptive practices under the UCL. 3 On May 1,2012, defendant Hagobian filed a Motion to Dismiss 24 25 26 27 28 2 On March 16,2011 this case was transferred from Judge Irma E. Gonzalez. [Doc. No. 12.] 3 The SAC named Seamless, McDevitt, Hagobian, Jean-Pierre Radtke ("Radtke"), Premiere Capital Escrow, Inc. (",Premiere"), and Luis Antonio Venegas ("Venegas") as defendants. Defendants Radtke, Premiere, and Venegas were added as additional defendants by Plaintiff for the first time in the SAC. A summons for the SAC was issued on April 3, 2012. [Doc. No. 54]. Defendant Hagobian has been served and appeared. Defendant McDevitt has been served with the F AC but not the SAC, but has yet to appear. All other added defendants have not yet been served. -2- ll-cv-00240-AJB(KSq 1 [Doc. No. 59] and on June 1, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to remand. [Doc. No. 61.] On August 1, 2 2012, plaintiff filed the instant motion for an order extending time to serve defendants for ninety days 3 and to permit limited discovery of defendants' locations. [Doc. No. 69 & 70.] On August 7, 2012 a 4 response in opposition to the plaintiffs request for expedited limited discovery was filed by the 5 defendant. [Doc. No. 71.] On August 23,2012, while the plaintiffs motion for expedited limited 6 discovery was pending, the Court issued an order granting a ninety day extension of time to serve 7 defendants. [Doc. No. 72.] On September 10, 2012, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs 8 Motion to Remand, [Doc. No. 61] and granting defendant's Motion to Dismiss the SAC [Doc. No. 59] 9 with regard to the first three causes of action without leave to amend, and with leave to amend with 10 respect to the fourth cause of action. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty 11 (30) days of the Order, in the event the plaintiff elected to file an amended complaint with respect to 12 the fourth cause of action. Defendants' answer was to be due within thirty (30) days of the filing of 13 the amended complaint. 14 On October 10,2012, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). [Doc. No. 74.] 15 The Complaint contains four causes of action including violations of: (1) the Elder Abuse Act4 ; (2) 16 common law provisions against fraud and deceie; (3) breach of fiduciary duty6; and (4) unlawful, 17 unfair, and deceptive practices under UCL. 7 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff alleges that she is a victim offraud and elder abuse due to the fraudulent and deceitful 20 financial practices ofdefendants. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to fraudulently induce her 21 to refinance her home and that as a result she paid $27,000 to enter into a loan that she neither 22 23 24 25 4 This cause of action is asserted against Defendants Seamless, McDevitt, Radtke, Venegas, and DOES 1-100. 26 5 This cause of action is asserted against Defendants Seamless, McDevitt, Radtke, Venegas, and DOES 1-100. 27 28 6 This cause of action is asserted against Premier Capital, Seamless and DOES 1-100. 7 This cause of action is asserted against all defendants. A motion for sanctions is pending by defendant Hagobian, but does not appear to affect the current discovery motion at issue. [Doc. No. 76.] -3- \\-cv-00240-AJ8(KSC) 1 understood nor could afford. [Doc. No. 53, SAC at 4.] 2 Plaintiff further alleges that defendants solicited her to refinance her home, falsified her loan 3 application, misrepresented her income for the loan application, forged her signature and ultimately 4 provided her with a deceptively devised financial product. [Id. at 5-6.] Plaintiff was eventually unable 5 to pay the monthly loan payments and was unsuccessful at arranging further modifications to her loan. 6 [Id. at 6,7.] After a foreclosure proceeding was begun against plaintiffs home, a short sale was 7 arranged at the suggestion ofWachovia. [Id. at 7.] As alleged, plaintifflost her home and all of her 8 savings as a result of defendant's alleged wrongdoing. [Id.] 9 DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take Limited Discovery seeks an order permitting 11 very limited, tailored discovery in the form of interrogatories directed to Mr. Hagobian requesting 12 provision ofany and all contact information for the remaining defendants. 13 Discovery is generally not permitted without a court order before the parties have conferred 14 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), unless a party obtains a stipulation or court order 15 to conduct the discovery. FED. R. CIv. P. 26(d)(I). A court order allowing the discovery may be 16 appropriate when there is good cause or "where the need for the discovery, in consideration of the 17 administration ofjustice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party." Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo 18 Elec. Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-76 (N.D. CaL 2002). "[I]n rare cases, courts have made 19 exceptions, permitting limited discovery to ensue after filing of the complaint to permit the plaintiff 20 to learn the identifying facts necessary to permit service on the defendant." Columbia Ins. Co. v. 21 Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 577 (N.D. CaL1999). Courts in the Ninth Circuit generally grant 22 requests for expedited discovery when the moving party shows good cause. See also, Gillespie v. 23 Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637,642 (9th Cir. 1980) (reversing the district court's dismissal of the case with 24 respect to the doe defendants without permitting discovery from other named defendants). Courts also 25 consider whether the requested "expedited discovery would ultimately conserve party and court 26 resources and expedite the litigation." Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. 27 Plaintiff has reason to believe that she will be able to locate and serve at least some of the 28 defendants ifshe is permitted to obtain information in the possession ofChad Hagobian. [Doc. No.70 - 4- ll-cv-00240-Al8(KSC) 1 at 2.] As indicated in Mr. Salisbury's Declaration in support of this application, plaintiff has learned 2 through discussions with Mr. Hagobian's attorney that Mr. Hagobian was not only the broker ofrecord 3 for defendant Seamless Financial Corporation, but also may have been its treasurer. [Doc.70-1 at 2.] 4 The Declaration also states that Mr. Hagobian worked closely with defendant lean-Pierre Radtke, 5 President of Seamless. [ld.] Mr. Hagobian did not respond to an informal request for information 6 regarding the location ofthe defendants. [Doc. No. 70 at 2.] Plaintiffhas requested narrowly "tailored 7 discovery in the form ofinterrogatories asking Mr. Habogian to provide all known contact information 8 for the remaining defendants." [ld] Expedited discovery is permissible when it is "narrowly tailored" 9 to "contribute to moving th[e] case forward" and is not to be a "free ranging" inquiry for which 10 defendant may not have had ample time to prepare}. Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 277 (fmding narrowly 11 tailored expedited discovery permissible when it substantially moves the case forward). Plaintiffhas 12 demonstrated that the narrow discovery requested will likely contribute to moving this case forward; 13 further, the service of this discovery does not prejudice defendant Chad Hagobian. 14 CONCLUSION 15 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to grant plaintiff's application for an order 16 permitting limited expedited discovery pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 26(d}( 1} to obtain 17 information from Mr. Chad Hagobian concerning the location of the other named defendants. 18 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Take 19 Expedited Discovery is GRANTED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ,-.j Date: December --1--,2012 22 23 u 24 25 26 27 28 -5- ll-cv-00240-AJB(KSC)

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?