Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing 80

ORDER LIFTING THE STAY AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The Court-imposed stay ECF No. 72 is hereby LIFTED. Nationstars Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ECF No. 45 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. As this Court previou sly ruled, Defendants motion, as it pertains to Plaintiffs individual FDCPA claim, is GRANTED. See ECF No. 71 . As indicated herein, the remainder of Defendants motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ECF No. 61 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 8 LAURA ZAMORA JORDAN, as her separate estate, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 NO: 2:14-CV-0175-TOR ORDER LIFTING THE STAY AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 12 Defendant. 13 14 BEFORE THE COURT are Nationstar’s Motion for Partial Summary 15 Judgment (ECF No. 45) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 16 (ECF No. 61). These matters were heard with oral argument on July 30, 2015. 17 Clay M. Gatens appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Jan 18 T. Chilton and John A. Knox appeared on behalf of Defendant. 19 20 Following oral argument, the Court certified two questions of law to the Washington Supreme Court. ECF No. 72. This Court stayed this case pending ORDER LIFTING THE STAY AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 1 1 receipt of the Washington Supreme Court’s answers to the certified questions. 2 ECF No. 72 at 9-10. The Washington Supreme Court accepted the certified 3 questions and, on July 7, 2016, issued its decision. Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, 4 LLC, No. 92081-8, slip op. (Wash. July 7, 2016). Accordingly, the stay is hereby 5 LIFTED. 6 7 8 9 In light of the Washington Supreme Court’s decision, the Court makes the following rulings: The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 45), which asked this Court to find the provisions at issue within 10 Plaintiff’s and class members’ deeds of trust enforceable under Washington law. 11 The provisions, which allow the lender to take possession, are unenforceable under 12 Washington law. As this Court previously ruled, Nationstar’s motion for partial 13 summary judgment as it pertains to Plaintiff’s individual Fair Debt Collection 14 Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim is GRANTED. See ECF No. 71 (noting that 15 Plaintiff conceded this claim should be dismissed). 16 The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment 17 (ECF No. 61), which asked this Court to find that Washington law requires a 18 lender to obtain the borrower’s post-default consent or permission from a court 19 before effectuating the disputed entry provisions. The lender is not required to 20 ORDER LIFTING THE STAY AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 2 1 obtain a court-appointed receiver pursuant to RCW chapter 7.60 in order to gain 2 access to the encumbered property prior to foreclosure. 3 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 4 1. The Court-imposed stay (ECF No. 72) is hereby LIFTED. 5 2. Nationstar’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 45) is 6 DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. As this Court previously ruled, 7 Defendant’s motion, as it pertains to Plaintiff’s individual FDCPA claim, is 8 GRANTED. See ECF No. 71. As indicated herein, the remainder of Defendant’s 9 motion is DENIED. 10 11 12 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 61) is DENIED. 4. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, provide 13 copies to counsel, and issue a Bench Trial Scheduling Conference Notice so that 14 this case may be scheduled for trial. 15 DATED July 21, 2016 16 17 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 ORDER LIFTING THE STAY AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ~ 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?