determined that these claims were preempted without a full analysis of HOLA, undoubtedly due, in part, to Plaintiffs opposition, which, while advocating against HOLA preemption, was stricken as untimely filed. Marquez, 2013 WL 5141689, at *3; see Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Marquez v. Wells Fargo, N.A., Case No. C 13-2819 PJH (N.D.Cal. July 30, 2013), ECF No. 28. A minority of courts, however, have recently “questioned the logic of allowing a successor party such as Wells Fargo to assert HOLA preemption, especially when the wrongful conduct alleged was done after the federal savings association or bank ceased to exist.” Rijhwani, 2014 WL 890016, at *7; see also Gerber v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., CV 11-01083-PHX-NYW, 2012 WL 413997, at *4 (D.Ariz. Feb. 9, 2012) (<HOLDING>); Leghorn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 950
holding that hola preemption does not apply to wells fargo because it is not a federal savings association holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists holding that a party did not waive its preemption defense where its answer did not specifically mention preemption but contained a broader defense that was capable of encompassing preemption holding that hola preemption applies to state laws targeting the activities of exclusive agents of federal savings associations holding that the preemption provision of the act does not apply to a fraud prosecution because there is no conflict with state insurance regulation