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 Ames to explain why her foreclosure case should not be transferred to Washington for venue and claim-preclusion concerns.
Linda Ames and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; the order required Ames to explain why the case should remain in the Northern District of California and paused Wells Fargo’s response concerning venue.
What happened
Linda Ames, representing herself, sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. over the 2013 foreclosure of property in Vancouver, Washington. She alleged that federal court jurisdiction existed because she lives in Washington, Wells Fargo’s principal place of business is in California, and more than $75,000 was at stake.
The court noted that Ames had previously brought similar claims about the same foreclosure and property in the Western District of Washington. That earlier complaint was dismissed with prejudice based on preclusion doctrines. The court also noted that the property, the alleged events, and Ames’s residence were in Washington, while the complaint did not identify another connection to the Northern District of California.
Judge Donna M. Ryu did not transfer the case in this order. Instead, she ordered Ames to file, by October 19, 2023, a statement explaining why the case should not be transferred to the Western District of Washington. The court also said Wells Fargo’s pending motions were not yet at issue because the complaint remained under required review of Ames’s request to proceed without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Ames v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 4:23-cv-01080
- Donna Ryu
- Oct. 2, 2023
Background
Linda Ames, who was representing herself, filed a complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint concerned Wells Fargo’s alleged conduct related to the 2013 foreclosure of property located in Vancouver, Washington. Ames alleged diversity jurisdiction, asserting that she resides in Washington, Wells Fargo’s principal place of business is in California, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The court took notice of an earlier case in which Ames asserted similar claims against Wells Fargo concerning the foreclosure and sale of the same Washington property. That earlier complaint was removed to the Western District of Washington and dismissed with prejudice based on preclusion doctrines. The opinion describes the earlier ruling as involving collateral estoppel and also refers to res judicata.
Required screening and venue analysis
Because Ames sought to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court explained that it had a continuing duty to review the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That review requires dismissal if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court identified the relevant screening issue as whether Ames’s claims were barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata, which are doctrines that can prevent relitigating issues or claims resolved in an earlier case.
The court separately examined venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil case may generally be filed where a defendant resides, in certain circumstances, or where a substantial part of the relevant events or property is located. Based on the complaint, the court stated that venue appeared proper in the Western District of Washington because the property was there. It found no indication that Ames’s claims were connected to the Northern District of California other than her allegation that Wells Fargo’s principal place of business was there.
Order
The court ordered Ames to file, no later than October 19, 2023, a statement explaining why the case should not be transferred to the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That statute permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The order to show cause required an explanation; it did not itself transfer the case.
Ames filed her response after the stated deadline. The opinion also states that she served Wells Fargo before the court resolved the order to show cause and her filing-fee application. Wells Fargo appeared and filed motions to dismiss and to have Ames declared a vexatious litigant, but the court stated that those motions were not yet at issue because the complaint remained under statutory screening. The court directed Wells Fargo not to respond to the order to show cause about venue unless the court later ordered otherwise.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be transferred and did not enter a final transfer or dismissal ruling in this opinion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.