Ames v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Linda Ames, a self-represented plaintiff, filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying filing fees. Her claims concerned Wells Fargo’s 2013 foreclosure of property in Vancouver, Washington. Ames alleged that federal jurisdiction existed because she resides in Washington, Wells Fargo’s principal place of business is in California, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

The court had previously noted that Ames had filed a similar complaint concerning the foreclosure and sale of the same property. That earlier case was removed to the Western District of Washington, where the complaint was dismissed with prejudice based on the court’s determination that the foreclosure and alleged fraudulent conduct involved issues already decided in a prior state-court action.

Venue-transfer issue

The court issued a second order requiring Ames to explain why the case should not be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That statute allows a federal court to transfer a case to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

Ames identified several acts that she said occurred in California, including origination of the loan and Wells Fargo’s substitution of a trustee with a California address. She also attempted to distinguish her current theory from her earlier case, stating that she now claimed the foreclosure was wrongful because the mortgage had been satisfied and Wells Fargo had not disclosed that fact to the court.

The court found that Ames did not identify any witnesses, state where they were located, explain why California was more convenient for her or another party, or address why the interests of justice weighed against transfer. The court construed her failure to provide that explanation as an admission that the Western District of Washington was the more convenient venue.

Ruling

The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and ordered the clerk to close the case. Because it found transfer proper, the court did not reach Wells Fargo’s argument that venue was improper under the local-action rule for disputes involving real property. The opinion also noted that Wells Fargo’s motions to dismiss and to declare Ames a vexatious litigant were not yet at issue because the complaint remained under review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Judge Donna M. Ryu did not decide the merits of Ames’s foreclosure claims.