Spesock et al v. U.S. Bank NA et al

Filing 30

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the court should not dismiss plaintiffs' claims against defendant Residential Funding for failure to prosecute. Show Cause Response due by 10/31/2018. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

JEFFREY SPESOCK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11

CASE NO. C18-0092JLR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
12
13

U.S. BANK, NA, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Spesock and Janet Spesock’s (“the Spesocks”) filed their

16

complaint in this action on December 6, 2017. (See Not. of Removal (Dkt. # 1) at 2.)

17

The Spesocks assert one claim against all Defendants—namely, that they are entitled to

18

quiet title to the property located at 1301 Mukilteo Lane, Mukilteo, Washington, in their

19

names. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1).) On September 26, 2018, the court granted

20

Defendants U.S. Bank N.A., successor trustee to Bank of America N.A., successor in

21

interest to LaSalle Bank N.A., as trustee for Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through

22

Certificate WMALT Series 2006-AR4 Trust’s (collectively, “the Trust”) motion for

ORDER - 1

1

summary judgment and dismissed the Spesocks’ claims against the Trust with prejudice.

2

(See generally SJ Order (Dkt. # 29).) In its order, the court concluded that the statutory

3

period on the Spesock’s Deed of Trust had not run prior to the Spesocks’ filing of the

4

present complaint. (See id. at 7-18.) In addition, the court also concluded that because

5

the Trust holds the endorsed-in-blank Note, it also holds the Deed of Trust as a matter of

6

law and, therefore, is entitled to enforce the Deed of Trust in a non-judicial foreclosure

7

proceeding. (See id. at 18-20.)

8
9

The only remaining Defendant in this action is Defendant Residential Funding
Company, LLC (“Residential Funding”). The Spesocks filed a declaration indicating that

10

they accomplished service of process on Residential Funding on December 21, 2017.

11

(See Verification of State Ct. Records (Dkt # 8) ¶ 1, Ex. A at 49.) Nevertheless,

12

Residential Funding has never appeared or answered the complaint. (See generally Dkt.)

13

The court orders the Spesocks to show cause why the court should not dismiss their claim

14

against Residential Funding with prejudice on the same grounds that the court granted

15

summary judgment to the Trust. The court also orders the Spesocks to show cause why

16

the court should not dismiss their claim against Residential Funding for failure to

17

prosecute. The court orders the Spesocks to file their response no later than 14 days after

18

the filing date of this order and to limit their response to no more than 10 pages. If the

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 2

1

Spesocks fail to timely or adequately respond to this order, the court will dismiss their

2

complaint against Residential Funding with prejudice.

3

Dated this 16th day of October, 2018.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3