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)
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?