You're viewing Docket Item 46 from the case Wright et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI




THEODORE E. WRIGHT, III AND
SHERRY K. O’NEAL WRIGHT,
HUSBAND AND WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,



vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., dba
AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY –
AS SERVICING AGENT FOR
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR
MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I,
INC. TRUST 2007-HE2, et al.,




Plaintiffs


Defendants.












Case No. 12-cv-05120-GAF








PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AS

TO WELLS FARGO

COME NOW, the Plaintiffs Theodore E. Wright, III and Shery K. O’Neal Wright, and

through counsel, responds to Defendant Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion to Dismiss their First

Amended Complaint as to Wells Fargo Bank as follows:

DISCUSSION



Plaintiffs have included Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to the extent that such party

will be necessary in its role as servicing agent and custodian of the Defendant Trust. Plaintiffs

have received multiple notices and correspondence from Wells Fargo Bank relating to the loan in

question; and Plaintiffs in good faith believe that discovery will demonstrate that Wells Fargo

has intimate knowledge, details, participation in, and documents relating to the Defendant Trust

as its servicer and custodian. In short, Plaintiffs in good faith believe that Wells Fargo will be

Case 3:12-cv-05120-GAF Document 46 Filed 08/01/13 Page 1 of 3

Page 1 of 3

necessary to obtain complete relief. In the event that the Court determines that Defendant Wells

Fargo Bank is not a necessary party to adjudicate the allegations as set forth in Plaintiffs’ First

Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that Wells Fargo Bank be dismissed,

without prejudice to preserve Plaintiffs’ right to seek re-joinder of the party in the event

discovery justifies such re-joinder within timelines set forth in the scheduling order in this case.



CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss should be overruled;

or in the alternative that Wells Fargo Bank be dismissed, without prejudice.


WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully pray the Court to enter its Order overruling



Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to Wells Fargo; or in the alternative that Wells Fargo Bank be

dismissed, without prejudice. Plaintiffs further pray for any other relief deemed appropriate by

the Court under the circumstances.





















































































Respectfully Submitted,

DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN, P.C.
111 West Broadway, P. O. Box 117
Bolivar, Missouri 65613-0117
Telephone: (417) 326-5261
Facsimile: (417) 326-2845
[email protected]


By__/s/ Donald M. Brown_______________
Donald M. Brown
Missouri Bar No. 57652
Attorney for Plaintiffs


Case 3:12-cv-05120-GAF Document 46 Filed 08/01/13 Page 2 of 3

Page 2 of 3









CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document has been served

upon all necessary parties through the ECF filing system contemporaneously with the filing of the

same on the 1st day of August, 2013.

















By___/s/ Donald M. Brown_____

Case 3:12-cv-05120-GAF Document 46 Filed 08/01/13 Page 3 of 3

Page 3 of 3