Poorsina v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Ali Poorsina, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The complaint concerned a property at 1563 28th Avenue in San Francisco and a loan Wells Fargo made to Xiaosong Zhang and Meng Li. Poorsina alleged that the loan application was faulty, that Wells Fargo failed to investigate the borrowers, and that Wells Fargo improperly approved the loan. He asserted two claims: violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and cancellation of a security instrument recorded on April 1, 2019.

Wells Fargo moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Poorsina also asked the court to take notice of several other complaints. The court denied that request as to the complaint filed in this case because it was already in the record, and denied the request as to the other complaints because Poorsina did not explain their significance or relevance.

Standing and Jurisdiction

The court held that Poorsina did not adequately allege Article III standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and personal injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. The complaint challenged a mortgage loan between Wells Fargo and third parties, but did not explain how Poorsina was injured or damaged in connection with Wells Fargo’s approval of the loan. It also did not explain how Wells Fargo caused any injury to Poorsina or how a favorable decision would remedy one. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court separately considered the asserted bases for federal jurisdiction. Poorsina’s claims arose under California law, and although the complaint referred to the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, it did not assert claims under those federal statutes. The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction does not independently create federal jurisdiction.

The court also concluded that the complaint did not adequately plead diversity jurisdiction. Although the parties were diverse, the complaint did not allege facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The complaint referred to more than $3.5 million in damages, but did not provide facts supporting that amount or linking the alleged harm to Wells Fargo’s conduct. The court found that this unsupported assertion was insufficient.

Disposition

Because the complaint did not establish subject-matter jurisdiction, the court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The court stated that amendment might not be futile and allowed Poorsina to file an amended complaint by October 1, 2021, alleging facts supporting his standing and the court’s exercise of diversity jurisdiction. The court expressly did not reach Wells Fargo’s argument that the complaint failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).