Hover et al v Seattle-First National Bank et al

Filing 68

ORDER granting Defendant Seattle-First National Bank a/k/a Bank of America's 65 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Bank of America are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH) (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS)

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 LYNN DALE HOVER and MILA JEAN HOVER, CASE NO. C18-0022-JCC ORDER Plaintiffs, 11 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 Defendant Seattle-First National Bank a/k/a Bank 17 of America’s (“Bank of America”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 65). Having thoroughly 18 considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument 19 unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein. 20 I. 21 BACKGROUND The Court set forth the underlying facts of this case in a prior order and will not repeat 22 them here. (See Dkt. No. 46.) On November 26, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims 23 against Defendant Bank of America without prejudice and with leave to amend. (See id.) The 24 Court’s order specified that Plaintiffs “may only allege facts demonstrating that Bank of America 25 played a role in the mortgage transaction at issue, and attach any supporting evidence in their 26 possession.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, (Dkt. No. 49), and Defendant ORDER C18-0022-JCC PAGE - 1 1 moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 65.) 2 II. 3 DISCUSSION A defendant may move to dismiss claims against it where the complaint “fail[s] to state a 4 claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint will survive a 5 motion to dismiss if it contains factual allegations that, taken as true, state a plausible claim that 6 the plaintiff is entitled to relief against the defendant. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 7 (2009). The Court’s review on a motion to dismiss is limited to the pleadings, but it may 8 consider documents attached to the complaint or referenced in it. United States v. Ritchie, 342 9 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). Ordinarily, the Court is bound to accept as true all of the facts in 10 the complaint. Vasquez v. Los Angeles (“LA”) County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). 11 However, the Court is not required to credit factual allegations that are plainly contradicted by 12 documents attached to the complaint. Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th 13 Cir. 1987). 14 In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs assert that: 15 The current scheme was advanced by [Defendant Bank of America] by a related transaction wherein [Defendant Bank of America] for some reason that needs to be discovered injected itself into current claims of rights to the subject property and participated in an apparent transfer of rights and duties in 2015 related to the subject property pursuant to the “Substitution of Trustee” document dated August 14 2015. A copy of the “Substitution of Trustee” is attached to this Complaint as “Exhibit H” and incorporated by reference herein. 16 17 18 19 20 (Dkt. No. 49 at 4.) Defendant Bank of America does not appear elsewhere in the amended 21 complaint, including in Plaintiffs’ recitation of the parties to the lawsuit and the causes of action 22 alleged by Plaintiffs that name individual Defendants. (See id. at 9–33.) Exhibit H, which 23 purportedly supports Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendant Bank of America “advanced” the 24 “current scheme,” contains two Appointment of Successor Trustee documents dated May 20, 25 2015 and October 10, 2018. (Dkt. No. 49-1 at 76-79.) Neither document mentions Defendant 26 Bank of America. (See id.) ORDER C18-0022-JCC PAGE - 2 1 Plaintiffs’ vague and conclusory allegation that Defendant Bank of America precipitated 2 the events from which their claims against the other Defendants arise is unsupported (if not 3 contradicted) by the evidence Plaintiffs rely upon. (Compare Dkt. No. 49 at 4, with Dkt. No. 49- 4 1 at 76-79.) Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to cure the deficiencies previously identified by the 5 Court and have not alleged a plausible claim for relief against Defendant Bank of America. (Dkt. 6 No. 46 at 5); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677–78. 7 III. 8 9 10 11 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Bank of America’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 65) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Bank of America are DISMISSED with prejudice and without leave to amend. DATED this 14th day of May 2019. A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER C18-0022-JCC 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?