Pauson v. Bay View Loan Servicing LLC

Filing 3

ORDER overruling Pauson's objections (Dkt. No. 1 -2) and adopting the Bankruptcy Court's findings and conclusions. (Dkt. No. [1 ] at 7.) Bayview's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. [1 ] at 14) is GRANTED. Pauson's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM) cc: plaintiff via the U.S. Mail

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 MARIE-LOUISE PAUSON, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 11 12 CASE NO. C17-1121-JCC BAY VIEW LOANS SERVICING LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Marie-Louise Pauson’s amended objections (Dkt. No. 1-2) to the United States Bankruptcy Court’s proposed findings and conclusions (Dkt. No. 1 at 7) on the motion to dismiss by Defendant Bayview Loans Servicing LLC (Dkt. No. 1 at 14). The bankruptcy court treated Bayview’s motion as one for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 1 at 8.) The court concluded that there was no dispute of material fact and that dismissal of all claims was appropriate under the doctrine of res judicata, because the matter had already been litigated in the Western District of Washington. (Id. at 11-12.) Pauson first objects that justice was not served because she was pro se and could not compete with law firms. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 2.) While the Court acknowledges that pro se litigants can be at a disadvantage, courts in this circuit attempt to remedy that disadvantage by liberally ORDER PAGE - 1 1 interpreting pro se pleadings. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed 2 pro se is to be liberally construed.”). Pauson’s pro se status alone is insufficient to conclude that 3 there was any failure of justice. 4 Pauson further argues that justice was not served because the bankruptcy judge said he 5 would not disagree with a fellow federal judge’s ruling. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 1.) But the doctrine of 6 res judicata leaves no room for any deference or favoritism by the bankruptcy court. Instead, the 7 question is whether the claim had already been resolved by another court; if so, the bankruptcy 8 court had no discretion to rehear the claim. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th 9 Cir. 2002) (“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits lawsuits on any claims that were raised 10 11 or could have been raised in a prior action.”). In her remaining objections, Pauson argues that the bankruptcy court was wrong in 12 dismissing her claims of slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence, 13 because they are distinct from the wrongful foreclosure claim that was previously litigated. (Dkt. 14 No. 1-2 at 2.) While Pauson is correct that the claims are not one and the same, the bankruptcy 15 court dismissed the claims because they were derivative of Pauson’s wrongful foreclosure claim. 16 (Dkt. No. 1 at 12-13.) This means that Pauson’s tort claims depended on and arose from the 17 previously litigated wrongful foreclosure claim. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court properly 18 dismissed those claims as well. See In re Heritage Hotel Partnership I, 160 B.R. 374, 376 n.4 19 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding that res judicata “[c]learly” applied to derivative claims). 20 For the foregoing reasons, Pauson’s objections (Dkt. No. 1-2) are OVERRULED and the 21 Court ADOPTS the Bankruptcy Court’s findings and conclusions. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) Bayview’s 22 motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 1 at 14) is GRANTED. Pauson’s complaint is DISMISSED with 23 prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 24 // 25 // 26 // ORDER PAGE - 2 1 DATED this 1st day of August, 2017. 4 A 5 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?