Fayant et al v US Bancorp et al

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING 4 , 9 , 17 MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND CLOSING FILE; denying 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 16 Plaintiff's Construed Motion to Remand. The claims asserted against U.S. Bank, Freddie Mac, Guild Mortgag e, and all remaining claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. File CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian. (WMK, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)

1
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2
3

Jun 04, 2024

4

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
9
10

WILLIAM ROBERT and JULIE L.
FAYANT,

No.

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

2:24-CV-00095-SAB

13

US BANCORP, DBA U.S. BANK

14

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, GUILD

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

15

MORTGAGE, DBA. CHERRY CREEK

DISMISS AND CLOSING FILE

16

MORTGAGE, FEDERAL HOME

17

LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

18

JOHN AND JANE DOE, ET AL.

19

Defendants.

20
21

Before the Court are Defendant U.S. Bank National Association’s (“U.S. Bank”)

22

Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s (“Freddie

23

Mac”) Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No.

24

15, Plaintiff’s Construed Motion to Remand, ECF No 16, and Guild Mortgage’s Motion

25

for Joinder to Motions to Dismiss, Rule 12(b)(2) Motion for Limited Dismissal of Guild,

26

and Rule 21 Motion to Drop Guild Mortgage Company as a Party, ECF No. 17. Plaintiffs

27

are representing themselves in this matter. Defendant U.S. Bank and Defendant Freddie

28

Mac are represented by Jessica Andrade. Defendant Guild Mortgage is represented by
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS; CLOSING THE FILE ~ 1

1

Joseph T. McCormick, III and Spencer Rossini.

2

Facts

3

The facts underlying this case have been well-documented. In 2005 and 2006,

4

Plaintiffs obtained loans from Cherry Creek Mortgage (“Cherry Creek”) and Washington

5

Trust Bank. The Cherry Creek loan and relevant documents concerning the loan were

6

subsequently endorsed and assigned to U.S. Bank. Plaintiffs used their home in Liberty

7

Lake, Washington as collateral for the loans.

8

In 2015, Plaintiffs attempted to rescind the loans. They then proceeded to sue U.S.

9

Bank and Cherry Creek in Spokane County Superior Court, asserting claims for (1) quiet

10

title; (2) fraud in the concealment; (3) breach of contract; (4) violations of the Truth in

11

Lending Act; (5) predatory lending; (6) violations of the Washington Consumer Protection

12

Act; and (7) violations of the Washington Deed of Trust Act. Their theory was that their

13

mortgage had been unlawfully sold, assigned and transferred and as a result, the lender no

14

longer has ownership or security interest in the Liberty Lake house. Spokane County

15

Superior Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, with the exception of the

16

claim for violations of the Washington Deed of Trust Act.

17

In 2016, Plaintiffs sued U.S. Bank, Cherry Creek Mortgage, and Washington Trust

18

Bank in the Eastern District of Washington, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending

19

Act and seeking injunctive relief. Plaintiffs were seeking to have the loans and notes

20

encumbering their home cancelled and voided.

21

Judge Mendoza found that Plaintiffs failed to present a cognizable legal theory

22

under the Truth in Lending Act because the record indicated the subject loans were

23

consummated and rescission had been long unavailable to Plaintiffs. He dismissed their

24

complaint with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that Plaintiffs’ claims were

25

time-barred because they did not send a notice of recission to Defendant within three years

26

of consummation of the loan. The Ninth Circuit rejected Plaintiffs’ assertions that the

27

subject loan transaction was not consummated.

28

A few years later, Plaintiffs were then sued by U.S. Bank in Spokane County
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS; CLOSING THE FILE ~ 2

1

Superior Court to remove and cancel fraudulent rescission documents that had been

2

recorded by Plaintiffs. Spokane County Superior Court granted U.S. Bank’s Motion for

3

Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs attempted to file counterclaims, which were ultimately

4

rejected. This suit was dismissed without prejudice on February 29, 2024. A week later,

5

Plaintiffs filed this instant action in Spokane County Superior Court. Defendants removed

6

the action to the Eastern District of Washington.
Motion Standard

7
8
9
10
11
12

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when “the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). As the Ninth Circuit

18

explained:
To be entitled to the presumption of truth, allegations in a complaint or
counterclaim 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. The factual allegations
that are taken as true must 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 v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). When evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,

19

the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Wolfe v.

20

Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). However, the court is not required to accept

21

conclusory allegations as true or to accept any unreasonable inferences in a complaint. In re

13
14
15
16
17

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2008).
A. Defendants’ Motions
1. Defendant U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss
Defendants assert Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges a host of non-sensical and illconceived claims relating to a mortgage loan. It argues each claim fails as a matter of law
because (1) they are not grounded in any cognizable cause of action; (2) they are barred by
res judicata and collateral estoppel; (3) Plaintiffs failed to schedule any of the instant
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS; CLOSING THE FILE ~ 3

1

claims in their collateral bankruptcy proceedings and are judicially estopped from

2

asserting them now; (4) Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred; and (5) Plaintiffs’ lack standing

3

to assert claims arising from their challenges to the assignments of a deed of trust.

4

Plaintiffs did not file a response to Defendant U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss.

5

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata and collateral

6

estoppel. Plaintiffs have had three opportunities to fully and fairly litigate their claims

7

relating to the Loan and purported irregularities in the serving and transfer of the Loan.

8

Each time courts have dismissed their claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have not only

9

asserted claims in the instant action that could have been asserted in any of the three prior

10

suits between it and U.S. Bank, but they have also asserted the exact same claims litigated

11

and dismissed with prejudice.

12

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred under the applicable statute

13

of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims for attempted wrongful foreclosure is not recognized

14

under Washington law and any claim under the Deed of Trust Act is premature because no

15

foreclosure has taken place. Finally, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they have standing to

16

challenge the assignment of the Loan. Any remaining claims are dismissed for failure to

17

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

18
19

2. Defendant Freddie Mac’s Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Freddie Mac argues that Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because

20

(1) they are barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel; and (2) they are time-barred.

21

Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant’s motion.

22
23

For the same reasons as set forth above, the Court agrees.
3. Defendant Guild Mortgage’s Motion for Joinder to Motions to Dismiss,

24

Rule 12(b)(2) Motion for Limited Dismissal of Guild, and Rule 21 Motion to Drop

25

Guild Mortgage Company as a Party

26

Defendant Guild Mortgage asks to join in pending Motions to Dismiss and also

27

makes a separate argument that it and Cherry Creek are separate business entities and

28

Guild has no relationship to Plaintiffs’ loans or to the dispute under which this lawsuit
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS; CLOSING THE FILE ~ 4

1

arises.

2

The Court agrees. The record demonstrates that Defendant Guild Mortgage is a

3

separate business entity from Cherry Creek Mortgage and is not a proper party to this

4

lawsuit.

5

B.

Plaintiffs’ Motions

6

In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant summary

7

judgment due to the lack of response by Defendant Guild Mortgage. The Court declines to

8

do so for two reasons: First, Defendant Guild Mortgage’s counsel filed a Notice of

9

Appearance on April 16, 2024. Second, as demonstrated in its Motion, Guild Mortgage is

10

not a proper party to this action.
In their construed Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs correctly point out the certificates of

11
12

service indicate that documents were mailed to the wrong address. What they fail to note,

13

however, is that Defendants corrected this oversight. On April 15, 2024, Plaintiffs were

14

served by First Class Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested ECF Nos 1-10,

15

which included the Notice of Removal and Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
For the past ten years, Plaintiffs have been seeking unsuccessfully to avoid the

16
17

mortgage debt that they encumbered nearly twenty years ago. Although leave to amend

18

pleadings should be freely given, the Court finds that allowing Plaintiffs to file an

19

Amended Complaint would be futile. Three prior courts have dismissed their same or

20

similar claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any factual or legal basis to

21

obtain the relief they are requesting. At best, it appears that Plaintiffs are using the court

22

system to avoid the inevitable, which only serves to impede justice for others. The Court

23

will not condone such behavior.

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS; CLOSING THE FILE ~ 5

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

2

1. Defendant U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED. The

3
4
5
6

claims asserted against U.S. Bank are dismissed with prejudice.
2. Freddie Mac’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED. The claims
asserted against Freddie Mac are dismissed with prejudice.
3. Defendant Guild Mortgage Company LLC’s Motion for Joinder to Motions to

7

Dismiss by U.S. Bank National Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage

8

Corporation, Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Limited Dismissal of Guild, and Rule 21 Motion to

9

Drop Guild Mortgage Company, as a Party, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED. The claims

10

asserted against Defendant Guild Mortgage are dismissed with prejudice.

11

4. All remaining claims are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

12

5. Plaintiff’s Construed Motion to Remand, ECF No. 16, is DENIED.

13

6. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, is DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order,

15

provide copies to counsel, and CLOSE the file.

16

DATED this 4th day of June 2024.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Stanley A. Bastian

Chief United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS; CLOSING THE FILE ~ 6