Pratap

Pratap v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Good Law
63 F. Supp. 3d 1101·2014 WL 3884413·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110002
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 7, 2014Case No. 12-cv-06378-MEJCalifornia6,371 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mariajames, J.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 37,

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

INTRODUCTION

This lawsuit arises from Plaintiffs Vi-ghyan and Sunila Pratap’s (“Plaintiffs”) default on four real estate loans and the resulting foreclosures on the properties pledged to secure those loans. Pending before the Court are Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s (“MERS”) (collectively, “Defendants” Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’) Corrected First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 37) and Motion to Strike Portions thereof (Dkt. No. 38). The Court previously found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing on Defendants’ motions. Dkt. No. 61. Having considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for the reasons set forth below. The Court additionally DENIES as moot Defendants’ Motion to Strike.

BACKGROUND

A. Overview

Plaintiffs are the Trustors/Borrowers on deeds of trust to four parcels of real property. First A m. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶2, Dkt. No. 33. The first property is a duplex located at 718 West Sunset Blvd. # 722, Hayward,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.