as it exists today. Accordingly, the Court adopts the minority view of HOLA preemption and finds that the court must consider “whether the alleged violations took place when the banking entity was covered by HOLA.” Valtierra, 2011 WL 590596 at *4; see also Rijhwani, 2014 WL 890016, at *7. Put simply, HOLA preemption applies where the allegations concern actions taken by a federal savings association or bank, even if that federal savings association is later acquired by a national bank. So, while Wells Fargo does inherit the liabilities and possible defenses that Wachovia could raise about its own conduct, Wells Fargo itself cannot violate state laws when servicing loans that were originated by an entity regulated by HOLA. See In re Tolliver, 464 B.R. 720, 739 (Bankr.E.D.Ky.2012) (<HOLDING>) Wells Fargo also argues that Plaintiffs state
holding that despite plaintiffs allegations of a conspiracy they did not suggest that any of the acts committed by individual defendants occurred in the united states holding that the defendants should not be allowed to hide behind a defense created solely for the savings association a nonparty in order to defeat allegations made against the defendants that are unrelated to any acts of that nonparty holding that the district court properly allowed the defendant who asserted the disputed defense as a contested issue of law in the joint pretrial order to pursue the defense despite the defendants failure to comply with rule 8c holding that in order to defeat successfully a motion for summary judgment more than mere allegations and conclusory statements must be offered holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second