2014 WL 890016, at *6; see also Marquez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 13-2819 PJH, 2013 WL 5141689, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 13, 2013). Wells Fargo relies on Marquez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., C 13-2819 PJH, 2013 WL 5141689 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 13, 2013), which found that several statutes in California’s non-judicial foreclosure scheme were “preempted by HOLA, as it imposes requirements on ‘processing’ or ‘servicing’ of mortgages, or on the ‘terms of credit,’ and also seeks to impose an obligation that affects lending.” (Def. Mot. at 7-8; see, e.g., Gabali v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 2013 WL 1320770 at *10, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47193 (N.D.Cal. March 29, 2013).) Marquez, howeve d 1093, 1108 (N.D.Cal.2013); Rhue v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2012 WL 8303189, at *3 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (<HOLDING>); Rodriguez v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 2012 WL
holding that whether hola governs the action depends on when the alleged conduct occurred holding that harassing conduct not sufficiently severe and pervasive where conduct would not have affected the work environment of a reasonable person holding that a case was not moot where city failed to provide assurance that policeman charged with misconduct would not be rehired or that challenged conduct would not be resumed holding that world savings banks conduct before its merger with wells fargo would be governed by hola where appropriate while wells fargos own conduct after that date would not holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence