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

Filing 20

ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that: DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (EOF No. 15) are overruled; PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO JUDGE YOUNG'S REPORT AND R ECOMMENDATION (EOF No. 17) are overruled; The REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (EOF No. 14) is ADOPTED on the basis of the reasoning of the REPORT & RECOMMENDATION; DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 3) ( "Motion to Dismiss") is granted in part and denied in part. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). An Initi al Pretrial Conference is scheduled for 10:15 a.m.September 19, 2018 and the Scheduling Order and Pretrial Schedule A shall be entered herein. Further, the Court is aware that the defendant's computer system precipitated over 600 erroneous referrals of loan modifications and consequent foreclosures. It is thus ORDERED that, by August 31, 2018, the defendant file a Statement of Position advising whether the properties and loans at issue were among those properties and loans that were subject of the computer errors and the ensuing erroneous foreclosures. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 08/07/2018. (tjoh, )

AUG - T 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CLtRK. U S OIRTRICT COURT

.

RICHlvlONU VA

Richmond Division

I

JONATHAN LOWE and

JENNIFER LOWE,

Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 3:18cvl26

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
ORDER

By ORDER (EOF No. 7) entered herein on March 16, 2018, DEFENDANT
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (EOF

No. 3) was referred to Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young for report
and recommendation.

Having reviewed the REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 14) entered
herein on July 9, 2018, the DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

ON

DEFENDANT'S

MOTION

TO

DISMISS

THE

AMENDED

COMPLAINT (ECF No. 15), the PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO JUDGE YOUNG'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 17), the DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION

TO

THE

PLAINTIFFS'

OBJECTIONS

TO

THE

REPORT

AND

RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 18), the PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO WELLS FARGO
BANK,

N.A.'S

OBJECTIONS

TO

MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

YOUNG'S

REPORT

AND

RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 19), and having considered DEFENDANT WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No.

3), the supporting, opposing and reply memoranda, and the record and

the REPORT & RECOMMENDAITON (EOF No. 14) and finding no error therein,
it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1)

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (EOF No. 15)
are overruled;
(2)

PLAINTIFF'S

OBJECTIONS

TO

JUDGE

YOUNG'S

REPORT

AND

RECOMMENDATION (EOF No. 17) are overruled;

(3)

The REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (EOF No. 14) is ADOPTED on the

basis of the reasoning of the REPORT & RECOMMENDATION;
(4)

DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE

AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 3) ("Motion to Dismiss") is granted in
part and denied in part as follows:

(a)

The Motion to Dismiss is granted with respect to

Counts I and II and, therefore. Counts I and II of the AMENDED

COMPLAINT (ECF No. 1-2) are dismissed with prejudice;
(b)

The Motion to Dismiss is denied with respect to Counts

(c)

The Motion to Dismiss is denied with respect to Count

III;

IV as to the defendant's request to strike punitive damages and
is granted with respect to Count IV as to the conversion claim
for the assessment of flood insurance; and

(d)

The Motion to Dismiss is granted with respect to Count

V is denied; and

(5)

An Initial Pretrial Conference is scheduled for 10:15 a.m.

September 19, 2018 and the Scheduling Order and Pretrial Schedule
A shall be entered herein.

Further, the Court is aware that the defendant's computer system
precipitated over 600 erroneous referrals of loan modifications and

consequent foreclosures.

It is thus ORDERED that, by August 31,

2018, the defendant file a Statement of Position advising whether

the properties and loans at issue were among those properties and
loans that were subject of the computer errors and the ensuing
erroneous foreclosures.

The issues are adequately addressed by the briefs and oral
argument would not materially aid the decisional process.
It is so ORDERED.

/s/

(is/

Robert E. Payne

Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virgimia

Date: August

Y < 2018