Karlen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Gerard Karlen and Ms. Karlen, who were proceeding without a lawyer, sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities 2007-2 Trust. The complaint asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act. The plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo and its subsidiaries serviced a mortgage secured by their home in Westport, Connecticut, and that Wells Fargo discriminated against them based on Ms. Karlen’s race. Their allegations included interference with efforts to sell the home except at a below-market price; surveillance, intimidation, and harassment; interference with maintaining and upgrading the home; refusal to provide mortgage statements; refusal to speak with Ms. Karlen instead of Mr. Karlen; and conduct involving Ms. Karlen’s deposition.

Wells Fargo moved to transfer the case to the District of Connecticut and also moved to dismiss. The court considered only the transfer motion in this order.

Transfer analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a civil case to another federal district where the case could have been brought when transfer would serve convenience and the interests of justice. The moving party must show that the receiving court would have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, subject-matter jurisdiction, and proper venue, and that the convenience factors favor transfer.

The court found that Connecticut was an available forum. Wells Fargo conceded, and the plaintiffs did not dispute, that a Connecticut court would have personal jurisdiction over Wells Fargo. The court also concluded that subject-matter jurisdiction existed through federal-question jurisdiction and that complete diversity would exist because the plaintiffs were Connecticut citizens and Wells Fargo was a South Dakota citizen for this purpose. Venue would also be proper in Connecticut.

The court considered the plaintiffs’ choice of forum, convenience for the parties and witnesses, access to evidence, familiarity with applicable law, possible overlap with other claims, local interest, and court congestion. It gave the plaintiffs’ choice of California less weight because they did not reside there. The court determined that the case’s center of gravity was Connecticut: the property was there, the alleged harassment and attempted improvements and sale occurred there, and Ms. Karlen was deposed there. The court also noted possible overlap with witnesses and discovery in a pending judicial foreclosure proceeding in Connecticut, while recognizing that the two matters were not necessarily related. The plaintiffs did not identify specific witnesses or allegations showing that California would be more convenient, although they expressed concern about continued harassment if the case proceeded closer to home. The court gave some weight to the plaintiffs’ argument that the case concerned Wells Fargo’s corporate practices in California but concluded that the overall balance favored transfer.

Ruling

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley granted Wells Fargo’s motion to transfer. The Clerk was ordered to transfer the case to the District of Connecticut and close the file. The court declined to rule on Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss. This order disposed of Docket No. 7; it did not decide the merits of the Fair Housing Act claims.