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)
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?