Von Houck v. Just Mortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 4

ORDER denying pltf's 3 Motion to stay foreclosure sale by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

OLGA VON HOUCK,

9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
JUST MORTGAGE, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. C13-77RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO STAY FORECLOSURE
SALE

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. # 1) and

14

motion to stay January 18, 2013 non-judicial foreclosure sale (Dkt. # 3). Plaintiff seeks,

15

among other relief, to enjoin Defendants Just Mortgage, Inc. (“Just Mortgage”), JP

16

Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

17

(“MERS”) and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo”) from

18

proceeding with the sale of her home in Renton, Washington, scheduled for January 18,

19

2013. Having reviewed the motion, supporting declaration, and the complaint, the Court

20

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

21
22
23
24

On January 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action against Just Mortgage, Chase,
MERS, and Wells Fargo. Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff asserts 13 claims arising out of the loan she
received from Just Mortgage and the deed of trust she executed to secure the loan,
including claims of fraud, violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, breach
of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

25
26

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY FORECLOSURE SALE- 1

1

Plaintiff also seeks declaratory judgment regarding the right to foreclose on the

2

property, whether defendants have standing to foreclose on the property, and whether

3

MERS is legally able to hold a beneficial interest in a deed of trust in Washington. Id.

4

¶¶ 6.1-18.4.

5
6
7

A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief “must establish that he is likely to succeed on
the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). “Because a

8
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the movant’s right to relief must be
9
10

clear and unequivocal.” Wilderness Workshop v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 531 F.3d
1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

11

While Plaintiff’s complaint provides a lengthy summary of the recent

12

developments in the mortgage industry, Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 1.1-1.26, she offers little to no

13

factual allegations regarding her particular mortgage, her default on the loan, or the

14

upcoming trustee’s sale. Plaintiff broadly asserts that none of the Defendants or their

15

agents have ever had a legal beneficial interest in the deed of trust or a legal right to

16

collect payments on the loan. Id. ¶ 3.7. However, Plaintiff has not made specific factual

17

allegations or attached any documents from which the court may decipher the basic facts

18

of this case. As a result, even though Plaintiff has offered to pay into the court registry

19

as required by RCW 61. 24.130, Dkt. # 3 at 3, Plaintiff has not established that she is

20

entitled to injunctive relief.

21
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay the
22
trustee’s sale (Dkt. # 3).
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY FORECLOSURE SALE- 2

1
2

DATED this 15th day of January, 2013.

3

A

4

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY FORECLOSURE SALE- 3