YOLANDA MULATO V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., No. 17-15011 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YOLANDA BUMATAY MULATO and ZOSIMA BUMATAY MULATO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-15011 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00884-NC Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, a division of Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted September 4, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: BERZON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and DOMINGUEZ,*** District Judge. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Daniel R. Dominguez, United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation. Yolanda Mulato appeals from the denial of her motion to vacate a judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM. “[M]ootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review.” U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994). Here, Mulato voluntarily settled her claims against Wells Fargo. The record makes clear that the settlement was neither “happenstance” nor unrelated to this litigation. Her argument that the underlying judgment in favor of Wells Fargo should be vacated is therefore foreclosed by U.S. Bancorp. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
