Summary
This document is a proposed finding and recommended disposition from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico concerning Wells Fargo’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Jose Madrid’s second amended complaint. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice of the breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and consumer-protection claims, and dismissal with prejudice of the New Mexico UCC and standing claims. The recommendation explains that the complaint did not plausibly allege actionable contract, fraud, consumer-law, or UCC claims.
Court
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
Decision date
December 10, 2025
Docket number
1:25-cv-00029-MLG-LF
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether the second amended complaint plausibly stated a New Mexico breach-of-contract claim.
- Whether the complaint pleaded fraudulent misrepresentation with sufficient factual content and particularity.
- Whether alleged failures to produce the original promissory note and chain of title stated an independent claim under the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code.
- Whether the complaint stated a claim for violation of consumer-protection laws despite identifying no specific law or cause of action.
- Whether Wells Fargo's alleged lack of standing to enforce the promissory note stated an independent claim absent a foreclosure or other enforcement action.
Holdings
- The proposed disposition concluded that Madrid failed to state a plausible breach-of-contract claim because he alleged that the mortgage agreement was invalid and therefore did not adequately allege the existence of a valid contract capable of being breached.
- The proposed disposition concluded that Madrid failed to state a plausible fraudulent-misrepresentation claim because he did not allege facts showing that Wells Fargo knowingly or recklessly made a false representation, intended to induce reliance, or caused detriment through reliance, and he did not plead the alleged fraud with particularity.
- The proposed disposition concluded that Madrid could not maintain an independent claim based on Wells Fargo's alleged failure to produce the original promissory note or chain of title because New Mexico law does not recognize that theory as an independent cause of action.
- The proposed disposition concluded that Madrid failed to state a plausible consumer-protection claim because he identified no specific federal or state law, cause of action, or supporting facts.
- The proposed disposition concluded that Madrid's allegation that Wells Fargo lacked standing to enforce the note did not state an independent claim because no foreclosure or other enforcement action was alleged and the asserted defect would be a defense to such an action.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…