§Why CasetextPricing

Sanchez et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Reply Memorandum 38 in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

21 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,195 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. Silvas v. E*Trade Mortgage Corp.

    514 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 400 times
    Holding that claims for unfair advertising and unfair competition brought pursuant to California's consumer protection statute were preempted by § 560.2(b)

  3. Bank of Am. v. City Cty of San Francisco

    309 F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that HOLA preempts state law because "regulation by OTS has been so pervasive as to leave no room for state regulatory control"

  4. Foster v. Arcata Associates, Inc.

    772 F.2d 1453 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 224 times
    Holding that no issue of fact exists where party's affidavit contradicts his prior deposition testimony

  5. Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    135 Cal.App.4th 1463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 123 times
    Holding that a cause of action under the UCL is not preempted by federal law if based on the violation of a federal regulation

  6. Gibson v. World Savings & Loan Assn.

    103 Cal.App.4th 1291 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that "the duties to comply with contracts and the laws governing them and to refrain from misrepresentation . . . are principles of general application. They are not designed to regulate lending and do not have a disproportionate or otherwise substantial effect on lending," and finding that a breach of contract claim based on the defendant bank's charging for more expensive property insurance was not preempted

  7. Rose v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.

    513 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims based on certain disclosure violations were preempted by the NBA

  8. Waiters v. Wachovia Bank, N. A.

    550 U.S. 1 (2007)   1 Legal Analyses

    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. SERVICES v. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A., ET AL. No. 05-1342. Argued November 29, 2006. Decided April 17, 2007. National banks' business activities are controlled by the National Bank Act (NBA), 12 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and regulations promulgated there under by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), see §§ 24, 93a, 371(a). OCC is charged with supervision of the NBA and, thus, oversees the banks' operations and

  9. Lopez v. Washington Mutual Bank

    302 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that UCL borrows violations from other laws and treats them as independently actionable and, therefore, an “unlawful” UCL claim fails where there is no violation of a predicate law

  10. White v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.

    563 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2008)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that a claim under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act that a bank engaged in unfair or deceptive business practices by manipulating the posting of transactions to an account in order to impose overdraft fees was not preempted

  11. Section 1818 - Termination of status as insured depository institution

    12 U.S.C. § 1818   Cited 496 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Granting subpoena power to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

  12. Section 484 - Limitation on visitorial powers

    12 U.S.C. § 484   Cited 69 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Limiting the exercise of visitorial powers, "except as authorized by Federal law . . ."

  13. Section 7.4002 - National bank charges

    12 C.F.R. § 7.4002   Cited 101 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Listing considerations

  14. Section 7.4007 - Deposit-taking by national banks

    12 C.F.R. § 7.4007   Cited 39 times   3 Legal Analyses

    (a)Authority of national banks. A national bank may receive deposits and engage in any activity incidental to receiving deposits, including issuing evidence of accounts, subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency and any other applicable Federal law. (b)Applicability of state law. A national bank may exercise its deposit-taking powers without regard to state law limitations concerning: (1) Abandoned and dormant accounts; (2) Checking accounts;

  15. Section 5.34 - Operating subsidiaries of a national bank

    12 C.F.R. § 5.34   Cited 33 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing that " national bank may conduct in an operating subsidiary activities that are permissible for a national bank to engage in directly either as part of, or incidental to, the business of banking, as determined by the OCC, or otherwise under other statutory authority"