Barton et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting Defendants' Motions and dismisses Plaintiffs' claims as they were, or could have been, brought in prior actions. (Dkt. No. 12 , 13 ). Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

JEAN MARIE BARTON, BYRON LEE
BARTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED,

12

Plaintiffs,
13

v.
14
15
16

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP. OF
WASHINGTON AND TRIANGLE
PROPERTY OF WASHINGTON,

17

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-01100 RAJ
ORDER

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant JPMorgan Chase, Bank, N.A.
(“Chase”)’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 12. Defendant Quality Loan Service Corp. of
Washington (“Quality Loan”) joins the motion. Dkt. # 13. The Court, having
considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to these motions, finds
that the motions should be GRANTED.
This is the fourth time Plaintiffs have attempted to bring this lawsuit. This
current lawsuit is not materially different or distinct from Plaintiffs’ third attempt at
litigating their claims. This suit involves the same parties and claims as the prior

27
ORDER – 1

1

lawsuit, claims that were actually litigated and resulted in a final judgment on the

2

merits. Moreover, any new claims in this lawsuit could have been raised in the prior

3

lawsuits. Both claim preclusion and issue preclusion apply here. See Tahoe-Sierra

4

Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir.

5

2003) (“Res judicata is applicable whenever there is (1) an identity of claims, (2) a

6

final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties.”) (citations omitted);

7

Sprague v. Spokane Valley Fire Dep’t, 189 Wash. 2d 858, 899, 409 P.3d 160, 183

8

(2018) (“The court considers four factors to determine whether collateral estoppel

9

applies: (1) identical issues; (2) a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against

10

whom the plea is asserted must have been a party to or in privity with a party to the

11

prior adjudication; and (4) application of the doctrine must not work an injustice on the

12

party against whom the doctrine is to be applied.”) (internal quotations and citations

13

omitted). 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions and dismisses

14

Plaintiffs’ claims as they were, or could have been, brought in prior actions. Dkt. ##

15

12, 13.

16

DATED this 11th day of May, 2018.

17
18
19

A

20
21

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The prior lawsuit remained in state court and therefore the Court applies Washington’s law of collateral
estoppel. In re Bugna, 33 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 1994) (“In determining the collateral estoppel effect of a
state court judgment, federal courts must, as a matter of full faith and credit, apply that state's law of collateral
estoppel.”).

ORDER – 2