Shaji v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
This text of Shaji v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Shaji v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHANDAS SHAJI; LEKHA SHAJI, No. 23-4431
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-03349-JAK-PD v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., formerly MEMORANDUM* known as Wachovia Mortgage, FSB formerly known as World Savings Bank, FSB; DOES, 1 through 10, Inclusive,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 26, 2026**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Mohandas Shaji and Lekha Shaji appeal pro se the district court’s judgment
dismissing their action arising from the foreclosure of their property. We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Shajis’ claims for wrongful
foreclosure because the Shajis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Wells
Fargo “caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale” of their property.
Miles v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 625, 636 (Ct. App.
2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth elements of a
claim for wrongful foreclosure under California law).
The district court properly dismissed the Shajis’ claim for negligence
because the Shajis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Wells Fargo owed
them a duty of care. See Artiglio v. Corning Inc., 957 P.2d 1313, 1318 (Cal. 1998)
(setting forth elements of a claim for negligence under California law); see also
Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 505 P.3d 625, 650 (Cal. 2022) (holding that there
is no “duty on lenders to exercise due care in processing, reviewing and responding
to loan modification applications”).
The district court properly dismissed the Shajis’ claim for breach of contract
because the Shajis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Wells Fargo
breached any agreement. See Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115,
2 23-4431 1121 (Cal. 2011) (setting forth elements of a claim for breach of contract under
California law).
The district court properly dismissed the Shajis’ claim for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because the Shajis failed to allege
facts sufficient to show that Wells Fargo withheld any benefits due to them under
their mortgage contract. See Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 987, 992 (9th
Cir. 2001) (setting forth elements of a claim for breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing claim under California law).
The district court properly dismissed the Shajis’ claim for unjust enrichment
because the Shajis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Wells Fargo
“received and unjustly retained a benefit at [their] expense.” ESG Cap. Partners,
LP v. Stratos, 828 F.3d 1023, 1038 (9th Cir. 2016) (setting forth requirements to
state a claim for unjust enrichment under California law).
The district court properly dismissed the Shajis’ claim under California
Business and Professions Code § 17200 because the Shajis failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that Wells Fargo’s actions were unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.
See Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir.
2000) (explaining that § 17200 prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business act or practice” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed the Shajis’ claim for intentional
3 23-4431 infliction of emotional distress because the Shajis failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that Wells Fargo’s conduct was extreme or outrageous. See Hughes v. Pair,
209 P.3d 963, 976 (Cal. 2009) (setting forth elements of a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress under California law).
The district court properly dismissed the Shajis’ claim for negligent
infliction of emotional distress because the Shajis failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that Wells Fargo owed them a duty of care or that the damage that occurred
during their eviction was foreseeable. See Ess v. Eskaton Properties, Inc., 118 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 240, 244 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining that under California law, claims for
negligent infliction of emotional distress follow the traditional elements of
negligence).
The district court properly dismissed the Shajis’ claim for negligence per se
because the Shajis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Wells Fargo
violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation. See Galvez v. Frields, 107 Cal. Rptr.
2d 50, 58 (Ct. App. 2001) (setting forth elements of a claim for negligence per se
under California law).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
4 23-4431
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Shaji v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaji-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-ca9-2026.