Dennis et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 62

ORDER - Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF 54 and ECF 56 ) are GRANTED. Plaintiffs may have 28 days from the date of this Order to file a second amended complaint, if they believe they can cure the deficiencies identified in this Order. If Plaintiffs do not timely file a sufficient second amended complaint, this action will be dismissed. Signed on 1/22/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. Copy mailed to Plaintiffs on 1/22/2019 (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DWAYNE J. DENNIS and
HAZEL R.D. DENNIS,

Case No. 3:18-cv-1049-SI
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON,
Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs Dwayne and Hazel Dennis, representing themselves, seek to
enjoin the foreclosure of their home and obtain money damages. Their lawsuit relates to a line of
credit secured by their home that Plaintiffs obtained in 2005 from Defendant Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. (“Wells Fargo”). Both Wells Fargo and Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation of
Washington (“Quality Loan”) have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, as alleged in the
Amended Complaint.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only when there is no
cognizable legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual
allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs.,
Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint’s factual
allegations, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts alleged in the complaint
and construe them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v. HewlettPAGE 1 – ORDER

Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629
F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). To be entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint
“may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations
of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself
effectively.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). All reasonable inferences from
the factual allegations must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Newcal Indus. v. Ikon Office
Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). The court need not, however, credit the
plaintiff’s legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to “plausibly
suggest an entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be
subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation.” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216.
Both parties have submitted numerous exhibits to the Court, often at the Court’s
invitation, relating to the underlying events. Without objection by the parties, the Court takes
judicial notice of all the loan-related documents submitted by the parties.
Plaintiffs contend that they do not have a loan with Wells Fargo and that Wells Fargo
credited their checking account with $204,000 “without [their] authorization, permission or
signature.” ECF 30. But the records indicate that on or about October 4, 2005, Plaintiffs signed
an agreement in favor of Wells Fargo for a credit line of $204.000.00 (the “Loan”). ECF 55,
Ex. 1. To secure repayment of the Loan, Plaintiffs signed a Deed of Trust, which granted a
security interest in Plaintiffs’ home to Wells Fargo Financial National Bank as Trustee and Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. as “Beneficiary/Lender.” ECF 55, Ex. 2. The Deed of Trust indicates that is
secures a maximum debt obligation of $204,000.00 and granted the “power of sale” to the trustee
for the benefit of Wells Fargo in the event Plaintiffs defaulted on their obligation to repay the

PAGE 2 – ORDER

Loan. ECF 55, Ex. 3. In 2005, Plaintiffs received $204,000 from Well Fargo pursuant to
Plaintiffs’ line of credit. In 2015, Plaintiffs defaulted on their payments due under the Loan. In
March 2018, Wells Fargo sent Plaintiffs a notice of default, informing them that they now owed
a total amount of $206,837.84, consisting of principal borrowed plus interest less payments
made. ECF 55, Ex. 4. Because Plaintiffs signed the documents relating to the Loan, received the
proceeds of the Loan, and failed to make all payments when due, Plaintiffs’ claims alleged in the
Amended Complaint lack facial plausibility and are thus subject to dismissal.
In their response to Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs recite, among other
things, the several causes of action that appear in the caption of their Amended Complaint. As
stated above, however, the Ninth Circuit has explained that to be entitled to a presumption of
truth, allegations in a complaint “may not simply recite the elements of a cause of action,” Starr,
652 F.3d at 1216. The Court recognizes that it is often difficult for individuals untrained in the
law to represent themselves in a federal court lawsuit. For that reason, the Court provides certain
allowances to parties who represent themselves. But Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is
insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF 54 and ECF 56) are GRANTED. Plaintiffs may
have 28 days from the date of this Order to file a second amended complaint, if they believe they
can cure the deficiencies identified in this Order. If Plaintiffs do not timely file a sufficient
second amended complaint, this action will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 22nd day of January, 2019.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 3 – ORDER