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

Filing 35

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 9/8/2011. (ED)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
O RLANDO D IVISION
ANDREW CONKLIN,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 6:11-cv-443-Orl-31GJK

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and JOHN
DOE LOAN OWNER, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________________

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc.
29) filed by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and the response (Doc. 30) filed by the Plaintiff.
As was the case with the previous Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9), the issues raised and arguments
advanced in the instant motion mirror those in Paschette v. Wells Fargo, Case No. 6:11-cv-442Orl-31GJK, and the same result is warranted. See Doc. 36 in Paschette. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 29) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count I is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Count
III is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff’s jury trial demand is STRICKEN.
Should he desire it, the Plaintiff will be given one last chance to state a claim under
RESPA. The Plaintiff may file another amended complaint on or before September 19, 2011. If

he chooses to file another amended complaint, the document should not include a TILA claim or a
jury trial demand.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on September 8, 2011.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-2-