Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 21, 2018

EUGENE HARRIS III; CONNIE L. HARRIS, Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, dba WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION; DOES I-C, INCLUSIVE, Defendants.

          ORDER

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before this Court comes Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)'s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7). For the reasons stated below, this motion is granted and the case is dismissed without prejudice.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On July 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Eugene Harris III (“Mr. Harris”) and Connie L. Harris (“Mrs. Harris”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their Complaint in state court, alleging the following causes of action: (1) injunctive relief; (2) breach of contract; and (3) negligence. (ECF No. 1-1). Wells Fargo filed a Petition for Removal before this Court on August 14, 2017. (ECF No. 1). Wells Fargo contends that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1334. Based upon the Petition for Removal, no Defendant is a citizen of Nevada, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.

         On September 5, 2017, Wells Fargo filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 7) and a related Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 8). On March 1, 2018, Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation (“QLS”) filed a Joinder to the Motion. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiffs filed their Response on October 13, 2017. (ECF No. 14). On November 3, 2017, Wells Fargo filed its Reply. (ECF No. 16). The Court held a hearing on the matter on July 17, 2018, and took the matter under submission. This Order now follows.

         III. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Motion to Dismiss

         In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “[a]ll well-pleaded allegations of material fact in the complaint are accepted as true and are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Faulkner v. ADT Security Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017, 1019 (9th Cir. 2013). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ” meaning that the court can reasonably infer “that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

         B. Judicial Notice

         Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) states in relevant part that courts may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that cannot be reasonably disputed because they “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” These facts include “documents on file in federal or state courts.” Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012). Further, courts are required to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts if a party so requests and supplies the court with the necessary information. Fed.R.Evid. 201(c). However, the Court may nonetheless decline to take judicial notice of documents that are not relevant to the issues before it. Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006).

         IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS

         The Court takes judicial notice of the documents filed in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding and makes the following findings of fact. Plaintiffs are residents of Clark County, Nevada. Defendants Wells Fargo, QLS, and National Default Servicing Company (“NDS”) are servicers of the loans attached to the real property at issue in this case.

         A. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.