Cases

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: This appeal, arising from five putative class actions filed against Wells Fargo, N.A., and its predecessor, Wachovia Bank, N.A., raises the question whether Wells Fargo’s 1 waiver of its right to compel arbi *1034

PER CURIAM. The appellant raises three issues in this mortgage foreclosure case. We find two issues have no merit, but we agree with the appellant that the trial court erred in its calculation of prejudgment interest. The complaint alleged that the appellant defaulted on the note by failing to make the payment due on August 1, 2009, and all subsequent

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT PAUL A. JACKSON, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, Dated as of November 1, 2005 Securitized Asset Backed Receivables, LLC 2005-HE1, Appellee. No. 4D21-1913

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY IN FAVOR OF ARBITRATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and Wachovia Bank, N.A.’s (‘Wachovia”) Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay in Favor, of Arbitration (DE # 1384), filed ■ April 29, 2011. The Court is fully briefed in the m

ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE # 1387) (“Motion”).1 The Court has carefully considered the Motion, response, reply, and the documents attached to them, as well as Plaintiffs’ voluminous evidentiary submissio

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT UNION BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Union Bank’s Motion to Dismiss (DE # 1355), filed April 20, 2011. Therein, Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (DE # 1317), claiming both that 1) Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Natio

STEADMAN, Senior Judge: Wells Fargo foreclosed on a dwelling owned by the deceased husband of appellant Hattie E. Rose, the personal representative of his estate. The major issue in this appeal is whether the notice of foreclosure was defective in setting forth Wells Fargo’s “address.” Although Rose’s argument in this regard is hardly frivolous, we conclude that the foreclosure was valid and affirm the trial court’s judgme

ORDER PRELIMINARILYAPPROVING CLASS SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. The parties to the above-captioned actions currently pending against Bank of America, N.A. (“BofA”) as part of this multidistrict litigation have agreed to a settlement, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in an executed Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement”

OMNIBUS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Preemption and Further Reconsideration (DE # 1484), filed May 17, 2011.1 Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier Omnibus Order Denying Dism

730 F.Supp.2d 1080 (2010) Veronica GUTIERREZ, Erin Walker, and William Smith, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. No. C 07-05923 WHA. United States District Court, N.D. California. August 10, 2010. *1081 Adam Kent Shea, Brian Joseph Panish, Panish Shea &

David C. Godbey, United States District Judge This Order addresses Defendant Wells Fargo Bank NA's ("Wells Fargo") motion to dismiss [16] and Karen Ann Arndt's motion to appoint an attorney ad litem for Kenneth Arndt [24]. The Court denies the motion to dismiss as to the issue of capacity but otherwise grants the motion, and denies the motion to appoint an attorney ad litem. I. ORIGINS OF THE DISPUTE

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.gov. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA VERNON FIEHLER, ) ) Supreme Court No. S-18208 Appellant,

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Schneps (2022 NY Slip Op 06234) HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Schneps 2022 NY Slip Op 06234 Decided on November 9, 2022 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judicia

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v McCobb (2023 NY Slip Op 06275) U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v McCobb 2023 NY Slip Op 06275 Decided on December 6, 2023 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judic

Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, NA v. Envirobusiness, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 133575 Appellate Court WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, NA, as Trustee for the Caption Registered Holders of J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BRIAN J. WINTERS and REBECCA L. ) No. 79662-3-I WINTERS, ) ) DIVISION ONE Respondents, ) v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE ) CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, ) INC., Petitioner, ) PUBL

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND LEAVE TO AMEND MELINDA HARMON, District Judge. Pending before the Court in the above referenced cause, alleging Defendants’ failure to perform, under the parties’ Mortgage Loan Purchase and Servicing Agreement, proper mortgage servicing on multiple pools of mortgage loans sold by Defendants to Plaintiff Encore Bank, N.A. (“Encore”), is a motion t

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc WELLS FARGO BANK, a National ) Supreme Court Banking Association, ) No. CV-00-0062-PR ) Plaintiff-Counterdefendant- ) Court of Appeals Appellee, ) No. 1 CA-CV 99-0184 ) ) Maricopa County v.

OPINION ROBERT HOLMES BELL, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the motion for dismissal and summary judgment filed by Defendants the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) against the Plaintiff-Intervenors Michigan Attorney General and Department of Treasury (collectively, “State Plaintiffs”). (Dkt. No. 62

KAREN GREN SCHOLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This Order addresses Defendants'1 Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 92]. For the reasons below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. *617I. BACKGROUND A. The Federal Benefit Payment System