Hines v. Washington Federal Saving and Loan et al

Filing 30

ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9 ) is GRANTED. This action is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 8 ; 16 ; 13 ) are denied as moot. The Clerk shall administratively close this case. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 8/1/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 2:21-cv-01621-ART-DJA Document 30 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

***
DENNIS HINES,
v.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01621-ART-DJA
Plaintiff,

ORDER

WASHINGTON FEDERAL BANK, a
corporation; LARRY FOLKS, an
individual; and FOLKS HESS, PLLC, a
professional limited liability company,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Before the Court are Plaintiff Dennis Hines (“Hines”) Motion for Judgment
(ECF No. 8), Motion for Judgment (ECF No. 13), and Motion to Stay the Mandate
(ECF No. 16) and Defendants Washington Federal Saving and Loan, Larry Folks,
and Folks Hess, PLLC (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9). The Court
grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) and dismisses this action with
prejudice. The Court denies Hines’s motions as moot.
This is a fraud action arising out of what Hines appears to assert was a
scheme to foreclose on his home. The Court previously denied Hines’s motions to
amend his complaint and obtain the status of his case through the Freedom of
information Act. (ECF No. 26.) The Court also previously dismissed Hines’s claims
against Seattle Washington Home Office without prejudice for failure to timely
serve. (ECF No. 28.) The defendants who remain move to dismiss the operative
complaint with prejudice on the basis that it “fails to sufficiently put Defendants
on notice of anything they have done to cause Hines injury.” (ECF No. 9 at 3.)

28

1

Case 2:21-cv-01621-ART-DJA Document 30 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 3

1

Defendants also argue that the Complaint fails because it alleges fraud and does

2

not satisfy the heightened pleading standard for allegations of fraud. Id. at 9.

3

Though Defendants cite Nevada statutes, the Court agrees with the

4

substance of Defendants arguments and dismisses the Complaint with prejudice.

5

Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to plead with particularity

6

under Rule 9(b) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6)

7

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the dismissal of an action if the

8

complaint fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ.

9

P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must state “enough

10

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.

11

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

12

Procedure require, when alleging fraud, a party to state with particularity the

13

circumstances constituting fraud. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Rule 9(b) demands that,

14

when averments of fraud are made, the circumstances constituting the alleged

15

fraud be specific enough to give defendants notice of the misconduct alleged. Vess

16

v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003).

17

The Court agrees with Defendants that Hines’s Complaint neither states a

18

claim nor satisfies the heightened pleading standard required for a fraud claim.

19

Hines alleges that he is elderly, offered to pay for his house, was rejected, and

20

explains that the bank has been rude, was essentially trying to steal from an

21

elderly person, and sent him a threatening letter. The Court is sympathetic to

22

Hines and recognizes that he is in a difficult position, particularly given his

23

advanced age. Drawing every inference in Hines’s favor, however, the Court still

24

finds that the Complaint simply does not state a claim upon which the Court can

25

grant any relief.

26

Because the Court has previously found that amending the Complaint

27

would be futile, the Court dismisses the Complaint with prejudice. Because

28

Hines’s claims against Seattle Washington Home Office are identical to his claims

2

Case 2:21-cv-01621-ART-DJA Document 30 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 3

1

against the remaining defendants and were already dismissed without prejudice

2

based on untimely service, the Court sua sponte finds that the claims against

3

Seattle Home Office would be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule

4

9(b) and administratively closes this case. 1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No.

5
6

9) is GRANTED.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 8; 16; 13) are

9

denied as moot.
IT

10
11

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

clerk

of

the

Court

shall

administratively close this case.

12
13

DATED THIS 1st Day of August 2022.

14
15
ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Wong v. Bell,
642 F.2d 359, 361–62 (9th Cir.1981).

1

3