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)
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?