Steven Ray Collins, et al. v. Wells Fargo and Company, et al.
This text of Steven Ray Collins, et al. v. Wells Fargo and Company, et al. (Steven Ray Collins, et al. v. Wells Fargo and Company, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN RAY COLLINS, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-1726-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WELLS FARGO AND COMPANY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that the Wells Fargo defendants (collectively “Wells 18 Fargo”) violated their rights under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in connection with a 19 foreclosure on their residential property. Wells Fargo argues that this action should be dismissed 20 because plaintiffs have already litigated claims related to the same property and foreclosure in a 21 separate case. That case was decided in favor of Wells Fargo, which now argues that claim 22 preclusion bars plaintiffs’ claims. I agree and recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted. 23 I. Legal Standards 24 A complaint may be dismissed under that rule for “failure to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to 26 state a claim, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 27 face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has “facial plausibility 28 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 1 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 2 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability 3 requirement,” but it requires more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. 4 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 5 For purposes of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court generally considers only 6 allegations contained in the pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly 7 subject to judicial notice, and construes all well-pleaded material factual allegations in the light 8 most favorable to the nonmoving party. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 9 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013); Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). 10 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either: (1) lack of a cognizable legal 11 theory, or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Chubb Custom Ins. Co., 710 F.3d 12 at 956. Dismissal also is appropriate if the complaint alleges a fact that necessarily defeats the 13 claim. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984). 14 II. Analysis 15 As Wells Fargo argues, claim preclusion applies, and plaintiffs’ claims should be 16 dismissed on that basis. It points to a previous lawsuit filed by plaintiff against Wells Fargo— 17 Steven Ray Collins, et al. v. Wells Fargo, No. 2:23-cv-2676-DAD-CSK—where similar claims 18 against it were dismissed.1 “Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment on the 19 merits in a case precludes a successive action between identical parties or privies concerning the 20 same claim or cause of action.” Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, 923 F.3d 685, 689 21 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[R]es judicata bars not only all claims that 22 were actually litigated, but also all claims that ‘could have been asserted’ in the prior action.” 23 Int’l Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Constr. Indus. Pension, Welfare and Training 24 Trust Funds v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing McClain v. Apodaca, 793 F.2d 25
26 1 Court documents from that case have been docketed, ECF No. 10, and Wells Fargo requests that I take judicial notice of them. I will do so; it is appropriate to take judicial notice of 27 court records from other proceedings. See Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We take judicial notice of the California Court of Appeal opinion and the briefs filed in that 28 proceeding . . . .”). 1 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 1986)). The doctrine applies “where the earlier suit (1) involved the same 2 claim or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and 3 (3) involved identical parties or privies.” Save the Bull Trout v. Williams, 51 F.4th 1101, 1107 4 (9th Cir. 2022). Those elements are met here. 5 As to the first element, both suits involve the same claims. In a prior ruling in this case, 6 the district judge noted, after a hearing, that plaintiffs’ claims in this case stem from actions 7 allegedly taken by Wells Fargo regarding loans used to construct a house at 5543 Danjac Circle in 8 Sacramento, California. ECF No. 8 at 1-2. The previous case, No. 2:23-cv-2676-DAD-CSK, 9 also concerned those loans. See ECF No. 10 at 46-47; 65-71. Indeed, plaintiffs’ claims in the 10 earlier case were dismissed as barred by res judicata because they had previously been litigated in 11 state court. Id. at 52-54; ECF No. 8 at 2. And plaintiffs’ opposition has not provided any 12 substantive argument that the claims raised in this case are materially distinct. 13 As to the second element, the motion to dismiss that decided the earlier federal case 14 counts as a judgment on the merits because it dismissed the claims with prejudice. ECF No. 10 at 15 337-338; see Federated Dep’t Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981) (“The dismissal for 16 failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the 17 merits.”).2 18 And, lastly, there can be no serious argument that the cases do not involve identical 19 parties. Thus, plaintiffs’ claims are precluded by the previous litigation, and Wells Fargo’s 20 motion to dismiss should be granted. In so recommending, I find it unnecessary to address the 21 other arguments raised by Wells Fargo in its motion to dismiss. 22 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that 23 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, be GRANTED. 24 2. Plaintiffs’ complaint be DISMISSED without leave to amend. 25 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 26 27 2 That judgment is final even where, as here, plaintiffs’ appeal is ongoing. Sosa v. 28 DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2006). ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 3 || service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 4 || court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 5 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 6 || within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 7 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 8 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Steven Ray Collins, et al. v. Wells Fargo and Company, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-ray-collins-et-al-v-wells-fargo-and-company-et-al-caed-2026.