Young v Quality Loan Service Corp et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting dft Homestone Mortgage aka Cobalt Mortgage's 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS) Modified on 1/15/2015/cc Young (RS).

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

KENNETH H. YOUNG,
No. 2:14-cv-01713-RSL

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

ORDER GRANTING COBALT
MORTGAGE, INC.’S MOTION
TO DISMISS

v.
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.
WASHINGTON, WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., HOMESTONE MORTGAGE, INC.,
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, a/k/a “FREDDIE MAC”,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., a/k/a “MERS”, and DOES
1-10,

14
Defendants.
15
16
17

This matter came before the Court on Defendant Cobalt Mortgage, Inc.’s unopposed
“Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Dkt. # 14. Having reviewed the

18
memoranda and exhibits submitted by defendant, the Court finds as follows:
19

Plaintiff’s claim for rescission cannot succeed based on the allegations of the complaint.

20
Because a notice of rescission was not provided until after the three-year statute of repose had
21
22
23

expired, plaintiff’s underlying Truth in Lending Act claim is barred and his related claims
(breach of contract, RICO, and civil conspiracy) therefore fail.1 Nor has plaintiff alleged facts
giving rise to a plausible inference that he is entitled to quiet title. Cobalt’s motion to dismiss

24
25
26
27

1

Although defendant has provided evidence from which one could conclude that the remedy of rescission is not
applicable to plaintiff’s mortgage because it was a “residential mortgage transaction” as defined in 15 U.S.C.
§1602(x), that evidence has not been considered in the context of this motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has specifically
alleged that the transaction secured by his home “was not entered into for the purpose of initial acquisition or
construction of that home.” Complaint at ¶48.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS — 1

1

is therefore GRANTED and all claims asserted against it in this litigation are hereby

2

DISMISSED with prejudice.

3
4

Dated this 15th day of January, 2015.

A
Honorable Robert S. Lasnik

5
6

United States District Court Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS — 2