Wilson et al v. JPMorgan Chase, N.A. et al
Filing
19
ORDER granting Defendants' 9 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH) (cc: Plaintiffs via first class mail)
1
2
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
11
12
13
JOHN R. WILSON, a married man; et. al.,
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
No.: 2:17-cv-00696-RAJ
ORDER
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; et. al,
17
Defendants.
18
19
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for summary judgment by
20
defendant Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington (“Quality”) and McCarthy &
21
Holthus, LLP (“M&H”) (collectively “Defendants”). Dkt. # 9. The Court extended
22
Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the motion to September 5, 2017. Dkt. # 18. However,
23
Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion.
24
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any material
25
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
26
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue
27
of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Where the moving
28
party will have the burden of proof at trial, it must affirmatively demonstrate that no
Order
Page -1-
1
reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party. Soremekun v. Thrifty
2
Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). On an issue where the nonmoving party
3
will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can prevail merely by pointing out
4
to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s
5
case. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325. If the moving party meets the initial burden, the
6
opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact
7
for trial in order to defeat the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250
8
(1986). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
9
party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Reeves v. Sanderson
10
11
Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000).
However, the court need not, and will not, “scour the record in search of a genuine
12
issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996); see also,
13
White v. McDonnel-Douglas Corp., 904 F.2d 456, 458 (8th Cir. 1990) (the court need not
14
“speculate on which portion of the record the nonmoving party relies, nor is it obliged to
15
wade through and search the entire record for some specific facts that might support the
16
nonmoving party’s claim”). The opposing party must present significant and probative
17
evidence to support its claim or defense. Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,
18
952 F.2d 1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). Uncorroborated allegations and “self-serving
19
testimony” will not create a genuine issue of material fact. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air,
20
Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002); T.W. Elec. Serv. V. Pac Elec. Contractors
21
Ass’n, 809 F. 2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
22
The only evidence that Plaintiff submits to prove his claims is his Complaint. Dkt.
23
# 1-1 (Complaint). Plaintiff has not filed declarations, and it is unclear whether Plaintiff
24
has pursued discovery of any kind in this matter. On the other hand, Defendants’ motion
25
and accompanying documents sets forth facts and arguments showing that no genuine
26
dispute of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust Act claims, Declaratory
27
Judgment claim, negligence claim, civil conspiracy claim, FDCPA claim, and CPA claim
28
as pled against Quality, nor is there such a dispute with regard to Plaintiff’s claims against
Order
Page -2-
1
2
M&H.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. Dkt. # 9.
3
DATED this 20th day of February, 2018.
4
5
6
A
7
8
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order
Page -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?