Jeloudov v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:20-cv-02492
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jeloudov v. Wells Fargo, Judge Chhabria granted dismissal with leave to amend, citing a likely time bar and claim preclusion, and denied sanctions without prejudice.
Gregory Jodi Jeloudov and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; the order permits an amended complaint and leaves open a possible later sanctions motion.
What happened
In Jeloudov v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the court considered Wells Fargo’s request to dismiss the complaint. The court said the complaint did not allege facts showing that the plaintiff had followed required discrimination-claim procedures or filed on time.
The court also said the lawsuit appeared to repeat claims brought in an earlier state-court case that had been dismissed with prejudice. It warned that the case might therefore be barred by claim-preclusion rules and that any request to undo the earlier judgment had to be made in the court that entered it.
Judge Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss but allowed an amended complaint within 21 days. He denied Wells Fargo’s sanctions motion without prejudice, allowing a new sanctions motion depending on what the plaintiff did next.
The detailed version
- Jeloudov v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 3:20-cv-02492
- Vince Chhabria
- Sept. 22, 2020
Background
Gregory Jodi Jeloudov sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The opinion discusses discrimination claims under Title VII and materials from an earlier 2015 case in San Francisco County Superior Court involving Jeloudov and Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo asked the court to take judicial notice of materials connected to that earlier case, including a 2014 right-to-sue letter from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The court granted that request.
Reason for Dismissal
The court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss. It said the complaint appeared to be time-barred because California Government Code section 12965(b) requires a civil action for discrimination under Title VII to be filed within one year of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s right-to-sue letter.
The court explained that receiving the letter and meeting the filing deadline are required prerequisites to bringing the lawsuit. The complaint did not allege facts about filing a complaint with the Department, issuance or receipt of a right-to-sue letter, or the time between the letter and this lawsuit.
The court also stated that the materials before it created substantial doubt about whether Jeloudov could proceed. It said the lawsuit appeared to assert the same claims against Wells Fargo as the 2015 state-court action, where those claims had been dismissed with prejudice. The court said the present lawsuit therefore appeared potentially barred by res judicata, a rule that generally prevents a party from relitigating claims already resolved in an earlier case. The court further stated that, if Jeloudov’s actual purpose was to obtain relief from the prior state-court judgment, that relief had to be sought from the court that entered the judgment.
Rulings and Deadline
The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It warned that an amended complaint should be filed only if Jeloudov could allege in good faith that the claims were not time-barred and argue in good faith that they were not barred by res judicata.
Any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order. Wells Fargo’s response would be due 21 days after an amended complaint was filed.
Judge Vince Chhabria denied Wells Fargo’s motion for sanctions without prejudice to filing a new sanctions motion depending on how Jeloudov proceeded.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.