King v. Northwest Trustee Services Inc et al

Filing 16

ORDER REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

BARBARA M. KING,

CASE NO. C17-1448JLR
ORDER REGARDING SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE
SERVICES INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
I.

INTRODUCTION

16
Before the court are pro se Plaintiff Barbara M. King’s and Defendants Select
17
Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and Deutsche Bank, NTC’s (collectively, “Defendants”)
18
responses to the court’s order to show cause regarding subject matter jurisdiction. (Pl.
19
Resp. (Dkt. # 13); Defs. Resp. (Dkt. # 14); OSC (Dkt. # 10).) The court has considered
20
the responses, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully
21
advised, the court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
22

ORDER - 1

1

II.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS

On October 18, 2017, the court reviewed Ms. King’s complaint (Compl. (Dkt.

2
3

# 3)), found that it inadequately alleged facts regarding the court’s subject matter

4

jurisdiction, and ordered Ms. King to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed

5

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (OSC at 1-3). The court acknowledged that Ms.

6

King asserts that the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based on federal question

7

jurisdiction. (Id. at 2 (citing Compl. at 3).) Although Ms. King vaguely states that her

8

constitutional rights have been violated, she does not identify—and the court cannot infer

9

from the complaint—whether those constitutional rights arise from the federal or the state

10

constitution. (Id. (citing Compl. at 5).) Moreover, Ms. King asserts claims for fraud,

11

negligence, and misrepresentation, all of which are state law claims. (Id. (citing Compl.

12

at 5).)

13

In addition, the court noted that although Ms. King does not expressly invoke

14

diversity jurisdiction, she also fails to provide a basis for that form of subject matter

15

jurisdiction. (Id.) Ms. King’s complaint alleges that she is a citizen of Washington and

16

that Defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”) is a citizen of Washington

17

and therefore fails to demonstrate the requisite complete diversity of citizenship. (Id.

18

(citing Compl. at 3-4).)

19

On October 30, 2017, Ms. King responded to the court’s order by addressing the

20

pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

21

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and arguing

22

that she has sufficiently stated a claim for relief. (Pl. Resp. at 1-3.) That discussion is

ORDER - 2

1

irrelevant, however, to whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., 28

2

U.S.C. § 1331; id. § 1332; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

3

Although Ms. King’s submission still fails to provide a basis for the court’s

4

exercise of jurisdiction, Defendants contend that diversity jurisdiction exists. (Defs.

5

Resp. at 1.) They argue that NWTS is “being replaced as the foreclosure trustee and even

6

if NWTS’[s] citizenship were considered, it does not preclude jurisdiction because

7

NTWS is a nominal defendant.” (Id.; see also Memmott Decl. (Dkt. # 15).)

8

“A nominal defendant is a person who holds the subject matter of the litigation in

9

a subordinate or possessory capacity as to which there is no dispute.” S.E.C. v. Colello,

10

139 F.3d 674, 676 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The paradigmatic

11

nominal defendant” is a trustee joined “purely as a means of facilitating collection.” Id.

12

(internal quotation marks omitted). Here, NWTS, as the foreclosure trustee, is a nominal

13

defendant, and Ms. King makes no substantive or specific allegations against NWTS.

14

See Prasad v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C11-0894RSM, 2011 WL 4074300, at *2

15

(W.D. Wash. Sept. 13, 2011) (“Most courts that have considered the issue of whether a

16

trustee under a deed of trust is a nominal defendant in an action challenging the

17

foreclosure or threatened foreclosure of property have taken the position” that the trustee

18

is nominal.); see also id. at *3 (stating that a trustee is not a nominal defendant when the

19

plaintiff makes substantive allegations and asserts money damages against the trustee);

20

Beiermann v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. C11-5952RBL, 2012 WL

21

1377094, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2012) (finding that the plaintiffs made specific

22

factual allegations against the trustee); (Compl. at 4-5). The court therefore disregards

ORDER - 3

1

NWTS’s citizenship in determining the court’s jurisdiction. See Prudential Real Estate

2

Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir. 2000) (“We will ignore

3

the citizenship of nominal or formal parties who have no interest in the action . . . .”).

4

Because complete diversity exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, the

5

court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; (Compl. at 5

6

(alleging damages of $750,000.00).)

7
8
9
10

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction
over this action.
Dated this 16th day of November, 2017.

11

A

12

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4