Filed: Jan. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 16 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff James Amar Singh sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Defendant"), World Savings Bank, FSB, and Wachovia Mortgage, FSB in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, bringing 17 causes of action related to a 2006 home loan. 1 (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A at 10.) 2 Defendant Wells Fargo removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 16 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff James Amar Singh sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Defendant"), World Savings Bank, FSB, and Wachovia Mortgage, FSB in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, bringing 17 causes of action related to a 2006 home loan. 1 (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A at 10.) 2 Defendant Wells Fargo removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant t..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 16
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff James Amar Singh sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Defendant"), World Savings Bank, FSB, and Wachovia Mortgage, FSB in Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, bringing 17 causes of action related to a 2006 home loan.1 (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A at 10.)2 Defendant Wells Fargo removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b), and alternatively, diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.3 (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) Now pending before the Court are Defendant's unopposed4 motion to dismiss, (Dkt. No. 16), and accompanying request for judicial notice,5 (Dkt. No. 17). After careful consideration of Defendant's briefing, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), vacates the January 31, 2019 hearing, and GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
On December 11, 2018, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order, concluding that Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims because the claims were "likely barred by claim and issue preclusion, and the `two-dismissal rule' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B)." (Dkt. No. 13 at 5.) The Court incorporates by reference its analysis in that Order and concludes that Plaintiff's claims are so barred.6
This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 16 & 17.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
