Hover et al v Seattle-First National Bank et al

Filing 63

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 56 Motion to Strike Amended Complaint re 49 Amended Complaint and denying Plaintiff's 62 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

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 10 11 LYNN DALE HOVER and MILA JEAN HOVER, CASE NO. C18-0022-JCC ORDER Plaintiffs, v. 12 13 SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK a/k/a BANK OF AMERICA (by mergers), et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Federal National Mortgage 17 Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, and 18 Seattle-First National Bank a/k/a Bank of America’s (collectively, the “moving Defendants”) 19 motion to strike (Dkt. No. 56) 1 Plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Dkt. No. 49). Plaintiffs have filed 20 a motion for extension of time to respond to the motion to strike. (Dkt. No. 62.) Having 21 thoroughly considered the motions and the relevant record, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion 22 for extension of time and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion to strike for 23 the reasons explained herein. 24 // 25 1 26 The initial motion to strike was filed by the former three Defendants, (Dkt. No. 56), and Defendant Bank of America subsequently joined the motion. (Dkt. No. 59.) ORDER C18-0022-JCC PAGE - 1 1 I. 2 BACKGROUND The Court has stated the underlying facts of this case in its prior orders and will not 3 repeat them here. (See Dkt. Nos. 26, 38, 46.) In August 2018, Defendant Bank of America, the 4 last remaining Defendant in this case, filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against it. (Dkt. 5 No. 39.) The Court granted Defendant Bank of America’s motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ 6 claims without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 46.) Plaintiffs filed an amended 7 complaint that re-alleged their claims against all named Defendants, including those against 8 whom Plaintiffs’ claims had previously been dismissed with prejudice. (See Dkt. No. 49; see 9 also Dkt. Nos. 26, 38.) The moving Defendants move to strike the amended complaint’s claims 10 as to them. (Dkt. No. 56.) 2 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. Motion to Strike 13 The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Federal National 14 Mortgage Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Nationstar 15 Mortgage, LLC with prejudice and without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 26 at 5.) Plaintiffs have 16 not established a ground enabling them to re-allege their dismissed claims against these 17 Defendants. (See Dkt. No. 49.) Therefore, the motion to strike is GRANTED as to Defendants 18 Federal National Mortgage Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and 19 Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. 20 B. Defendant Bank of America’s Joinder to Motion to Strike 21 Defendant Bank of America joined the motion to strike the amended complaint, asserting 22 that “[t]he arguments advanced by Defendants [Federal National Mortgage Association, 23 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC] are equally 24 applicable to” Defendant Bank of America. (Dkt. No. 59.) This is inaccurate. The Court 25 2 26 In March 2019, the Court granted Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ reasserted claims against it. (Dkt. No. 60.) ORDER C18-0022-JCC PAGE - 2 1 previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against the other moving Defendants with prejudice. See 2 Section II.A. In contrast, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Bank of 3 America without prejudice and with leave to amend, ordering that “the Hovers may only allege 4 facts demonstrating that Bank of America played a role in the mortgage transaction at issue, and 5 attach any supporting evidence in their possession.” (Dkt. No. 46 at 5.) Defendant Bank of 6 America has not moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint for failure to cure the 7 deficiencies identified by the Court; instead, it has chosen to cabin its arguments at this time to 8 those raised by the other moving Defendants. As those arguments do not apply to Defendant 9 Bank of America, the motion to strike is DENIED as to Defendant Bank of America. 10 C. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time 11 In response to the motion to strike the amended complaint, Plaintiffs move for an 12 extension of time to respond. (Dkt. No. 62.) Plaintiffs argue that they are unrepresented and 13 require additional time to review the motion, research the issues, and develop a sufficient 14 response. (Id. at 3.) But Plaintiffs have not shown how an extension would enable them to 15 oppose the motion to strike. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Federal National Mortgage 16 Association, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC 17 were previously dismissed with prejudice. (See Dkt. No. 26.) And the arguments raised in the 18 motion to strike do not merit striking the amended complaint as to Defendant Bank of America, 19 regardless of the arguments raised by Plaintiffs. (See Dkt. Nos. 46, 56, 59.) Therefore, Plaintiffs’ 20 motion for an extension of time to respond is DENIED. 21 III. 22 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association, Mortgage 23 Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s motion to strike (Dkt. 24 No. 56) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims against these Defendants remain DISMISSED with 25 prejudice. Defendant Seattle-First National Bank a/k/a Bank of America’s motion to strike (Dkt. 26 Nos. 56, 59) is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time to respond (Dkt. No. 62) is ORDER C18-0022-JCC PAGE - 3 1 2 DENIED. DATED this 5th day of April 2019. A 3 4 5 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER C18-0022-JCC PAGE - 4

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?