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.

Charleston v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

January 31, 2018

JOHN CHARLESTON, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

          Mark B. Comstock Garrett Hemann Robertson P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff

          Joseph A. Rohner IV Anglin Flewelling Rasmussen Campbell & Trytten LLP Attorney for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

          John M. Thomas McCarthy & Holthus, LLP Attorney for Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington

          Richard A. Uffelman Attorney for Aaron Reed LLC

          OPINION & ORDER

          MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings & Recommendation (“F&R”) [28] on October 16, 2017, recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [10] be granted in part. The parties have timely filed objections [32] [33] [35] to the F&R. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). After reviewing the F&R, the parties' briefs, the record in this case, and the relevant law, the Court adopts the F&R in part with modifications. The Court finds no basis to modify those portions of the F&R to which the parties did not object.

         BACKGROUND

         A detailed recitation of this case's factual background can be found in the F&R and the Court will not repeat it here. See F&R 2-6, ECF 28. Plaintiff brought claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of contract, unlawful foreclosure, violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617, and the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”), Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.605-646.656. Defendants are Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (collectively “Wells Fargo”), Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington (“QLS”), and Aaron Reed LLC. Wells Fargo, joined by QLS, moved to dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims listed above.

         The F&R recommended that the Court dismiss with leave to amend Plaintiff's claims other than the UTPA claim. Plaintiff, Wells Fargo, and QLS each separately filed objections. Plaintiff objects to the recommended dismissal of his wrongful foreclosure claim and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Pl.'s Objs., ECF 32. Wells Fargo objects to the F&R, arguing that the UTPA claim should be dismissed. See Wells Fargo's Objs., ECF 33. Lastly, QLS objects, arguing that Plaintiff's UTPA claim does not apply to it. See QLS's Objs., ECF 35.

         STANDARD

         When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

         DISCUSSION

         With respect to Plaintiff's objections regarding his wrongful foreclosure claim, the Court concludes that there is no basis to modify the F&R. Accordingly, that claim is dismissed with leave to amend. Similarly, as to Wells Fargo's objections regarding Plaintiff's UTPA claim, the Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and the relevant law and finds no errors in the F&R. Therefore, Plaintiff's UTPA claim against Wells Fargo is not dismissed. The Court, however, finds that it is necessary to modify the F&R in two respects. First, the Court agrees that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief should be dismissed; however, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief must, for reasons not addressed in the F&R, be dismissed with prejudice. Second, The Court finds Plaintiff's UTPA claim is inapplicable to QLS to the extent that it is based on Or. Rev. Stat. (“O.R.S.”) § 646.608(1)(u). Plaintiff's UPTA claim otherwise continues as against QLS.

         I. Claims for Declaratory ...


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.