Mulhall

Mulhall v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Good Law

241 F. Supp. 3d 1046·2017 WL 952951·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35771

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 13, 2017Case No. 16-cv-01841-DMRCalifornia5,565 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ryu, J.

ORDER RE DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant” or “Wells Fargo”) moves the court to dismiss Plaintiff Robert Mulhall’s (“Plaintiff’) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) [Docket No. 38]. Having considered the parties submissions as well as oral argument, and for the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff shall file his Third Amended Complaint by March 27, 2017.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover loan payments made to Defendant from March 2013 to December 2015 because, according to Plaintiff, there was no valid loan on his property during that time. The following facts are based on the complaint, the exhibits attached to the complaint, and judicially noticeable documents.

In 1992, Plaintiff purchased property located at 848 Arguello Boulevard, Pacifica, California (the “Property”). SAC [Docket No. 35] at ¶ 7. In August 2007, Plaintiff refinanced a loan on the Property in the amount of $536,000.00…

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.