Wilmot

I. BACKGROUND

A. Background Facts Wilmot purchased a home in Moreno Valley, California in or around 2004. FATCO served as the escrow agent for Wilmot’s transaction. FATCO is a controlled escrow company and required to file a schedule of rates with the Department of Insurance for all services it performs. FATCO’s schedule of rates in effect at the relevant time did not include a rate for a loan tie-in fee. FATCO nevertheless charged Wilmot a $125 loan-tie in fee in connection with her home purchase.2 Wilmot did not discover facts relating to the charging of what she would later contend was the improper loan tie-in fee until or about March 2007, when she attended a social event and met an attorney who mentioned FATCO when discussing the types of cases he was handling.

B. The Initial Iterations of the Complaint 1. Original and first amended Wilmot and her co-plaintiff Jason Munro’s original complaint, filed in April 2007, alleged ten causes of action on behalf of themselves and a putative class.3 A first amended complaint was filed later the same year. The first amended complaint alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith…