Ames v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
- Donna Ryu
- 4:23-cv-01080
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ames v. Wells Fargo, Judge Ryu ordered self-represented Linda Ames to explain why her claims are not barred by a rule against repeat lawsuits over the same dispute.
Linda Ames and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; the order required Ames to respond to a possible claim-preclusion problem but did not finally decide or dismiss the case.
What happened
In Ames v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Linda Ames filed claims concerning a 2013 foreclosure, including wrongful foreclosure, fraud, conversion, and civil conspiracy. She also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court noted that Ames had previously brought similar claims about the same property in Washington state court, and that the earlier case was dismissed after a court found that the issues had already been decided. Wells Fargo argued that the earlier decision prevents Ames from bringing the claims again.
The court ordered Ames to explain by May 11, 2023, why her claims are not barred by that rule. Judge Ryu warned that if Ames does not respond, the court may recommend dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the case in this order.
The detailed version
- Ames v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 4:23-cv-01080
- Donna Ryu
- Apr. 12, 2023
Background
Self-represented plaintiff Linda Ames filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. She asserted claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. arising from the 2013 foreclosure of real property located at 10810 NW 13th Place, Vancouver, Washington 98685. The claims were wrongful foreclosure, violation of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, conversion, fraud, and civil conspiracy. Ames alleged that the court had diversity jurisdiction.
The court took notice of an earlier related proceeding involving Ames, Wells Fargo, and the same property. Ames had previously filed similar claims in Washington state court, and Wells Fargo removed that action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In that proceeding, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss based on collateral estoppel, also called issue preclusion, which prevents a party from relitigating an issue that was already decided. The court concluded that the doctrine applied because Ames had already litigated the legality of the foreclosure and sale and the alleged fraudulent conduct connected with them. The earlier complaint was eventually dismissed with prejudice.
Res Judicata Issue
The court explained that under California law, res judicata generally prevents relitigation of a claim when the earlier decision was final and on the merits, the current case involves the same cause of action, and the parties or parties legally connected to them were involved in both proceedings. Under California's primary-rights approach, the cause of action concerns the right to obtain relief for a harm, regardless of the particular remedy or legal theory asserted.
Order
The court ordered Ames to explain by May 11, 2023, why her current claims are not barred by res judicata, including by addressing each element of the doctrine under California law. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that if Ames failed to respond, the court might prepare a report and recommendation recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Donna Ryu also referred Ames to the court's resources for people representing themselves and its Legal Help Centers.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.