Umouyo v. Bank of America, NA et al

Filing 30

ORDER terminating Plaintiff's pending 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment, which Plaintiff may refile after he properly serves BANA. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve BANA within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Alternatively, the parties may stipulate to service and file such a stipulation with the Court. Signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

HENRY A. UMOUYO,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC; AND ANY UNKNOWN HEIRS,
DEVISEES, GRANTEES, CREDITORS,
AND OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS OR
UNKNOWN SPOUSES CLAIMING BY,
THROUGH AND UNDER BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendants.

17
18

Case No. 2:16-CV-01576-RAJ

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

19

Dkt. # 22. Defendant Carrington Mortgage LLC (“Carrington”) opposes the motion.

20

Dkt. # 25. For the reasons below, the Court TERMINATES Plaintiff’s motion and

21

allows him to refile after he properly serves Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”).

22

Before the Court can rule on the merits of Plaintiff’s motion for summary

23

judgment, it must address the issue of service. Carrington has maintained throughout the

24

litigation that Plaintiff never properly served BANA. BANA has not appeared in this

25

matter.

26

The issue of service arose in Carrington’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to

27

remand. Dkt. ## 10, 11. In its response, Carrington argued that it did not need BANA’s

28

ORDER – 1

1

consent to remove the matter because BANA was never properly served with the

2

summons and complaint. Dkt. # 11 at 1. But even if service was proper, Carrington

3

argued that BANA, “who is also represented by the below-signed counsel for Carrington,

4

properly consented to removal.” Id. at 2. The Court relied on this assertion when it

5

denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Dkt. # 17 at 5.
On May 2, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why BANA should not

6
7

be dismissed due to improper service. Plaintiff maintained that he properly served

8

BANA. Plaintiff attached documents showing that he served BANA and Carrington the

9

same way—through priority mail. Dkt. ## 21-1, 21-2, 21-3. Plaintiff stated that he also

10

instructed Carrington to deliver the summons and complaint to BANA. Dkt. # 21 at 3.

11

Plaintiff argued that Carrington is BANA’s agent, and therefore service was proper under

12

Federal Rule 4(h)(1)(B). Id. at 3.
Under the Federal Rules, Plaintiff has not properly served BANA. Plaintiff

13
14

conflated Carrington’s position as a loan servicer with BANA’s registered agent for

15

service of process. These entities are not the same, and Plaintiff cannot show that

16

Carrington has been authorized to accept service of behalf of BANA.
Carrington’s counsel represented that it also represents BANA. However, “[f]or

17
18

an attorney to be considered an agent for process, he or she must have been appointed for

19

that precise task.” Ellis v. Johnston, No. CV07-508-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 508642, at *1

20

(D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2008). Plaintiff has not shown that Carrington’s counsel has been

21

authorized to accept service on behalf of BANA.

22

Therefore, to preserve the record, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to properly serve

23

BANA within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 1 If Plaintiff chooses to serve

24

BANA pursuant to Federal Rule 4(h)(1)(B), he is reminded that priority mail is not

25
1

26
27
28

The Court encourages Plaintiff to review Federal Rule 4 as well as this district’s pro se manual,
which can be found at:
http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/ProSeGuidetoFilingYourLawsuitinFederalCourt
.pdf.

ORDER – 2

1

sufficient. 2

2

The Court is weary of counsel for Carrington’s representations to the Court and to

3

Plaintiff. It is not hard to understand how these representations led pro se Plaintiff astray,

4

and how these representations have potentially derailed litigation and wasted judicial

5

resources. Carrington’s counsel has admitted that it also represents BANA. In light of

6

this representation—and considering the eventuality of service in this matter—the parties

7

may contemplate agreeing to service and filing a stipulation with the Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court TERMINATES the pending motion for

8
9

summary judgment, which Plaintiff may refile after he properly serves BANA. Dkt. #

10

22. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve BANA within thirty (30) days from the date

11

of this order pursuant to Federal Rule 4(h). Alternatively, the parties may stipulate to

12

service and file such a stipulation with the Court.
Dated this 25th day of January, 2018.

13
14
15

A

16
17

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff cites Jones v. Stebbins, 122 Wash. 2d 471 (1993), for the proposition that “service by
mail has the same effect as service by publication.” See Dkt. # 28 at 4. However, Plaintiff
misses a key portion of Jones in which the court explained that service by mail is only
appropriate by court order. See Jones, 122 Wash. 2d at 475 (A court will issue an order allowing
service by mail when there are ‘circumstances justifying service by publication’ and if the
serving party demonstrates, by affidavit, facts which show that service by mail is just as likely to
give actual notice as service by publication.”) (citing Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 4).

ORDER – 3