This presumption can be reversed only if the law can clearly be shown to fit within the confines of paragraph (c). For these purposes, paragraph (c) is intended to be interpreted narrowly. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of preemption. Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp., 514 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir.2008). Here, the threshold question is whether the HOLA preemption analysis is applicable to Wells Fargo, since Wells Fargo is not a federal savings association. The Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed this issue and there is a recognized split among the district courts in this circuit, which adopt one of two views. The majority have held that “the status of the originator of the loan determines the applicability of HOLA to a particular loan.” Rijhw 929, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2012) (<HOLDING>); Ramirez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL
recognizing that whether a consumer survey should be admitted depends among other things on whether the questions are leading or suggestive  holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred holding that reference to the defendants insurance at trial is harmless unless the defendants rights are prejudiced thereby and whether such prejudice has occurred depends essentially upon the facts and circumstances of each case holding that the outcome depends materially on the draw of the cards holding that whether hola governs the action depends on when the alleged conduct occurred