Perrie v. OneWest Bank, FSB et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; Regional Trustee Services Corporation Merscorp, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and OneWest Bank, FSB terminated. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5

DAVID A. PERRIE,
6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9

v.
ONEWEST BANK, FSB, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

CASE NO. C11-6063BHS

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants OneWest Bank, FSB

12

(“OneWest”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), and Regional
13
14
15
16

Trustee Services Corporation’s (“Regional”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7). The Court has
reviewed the briefs filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby
grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17
18

On December 28, 2011, Plaintiff David Perrie (“Perrie”) filed a complaint against

19

Defendants OneWest, Regional, MERSCORP, INC., MERS, and numerous unnamed

20

Does and Roes. Dkt. 1.

21

On January 31, 2012, Defendants OneWest and MERS filed a motion to dismiss.

22

Dkt. 7. On February 2, 2012, Defendant Regional joined the motion. Dkt. 10. Perrie did

23

not respond.

24

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

25

On February 8, 2008, Pierre executed a promissory note in the amount of $208,000

26

payable to IndyMac Bank, FSB. Dkt. 7, Exh. 1. On February 19, 2008, Pierre executed a

27

Deed of Trust that encumbered real property commonly known as 19930 83rd Avenue

28
ORDER - 1

1

East, Spanaway, Washington (“Property”). Id., Exh. 2. On May 26, 2011, Pierre was

2

sent a Notice of Default. Id., Exh. 3. On August 10, 2011, Regional recorded a Notice of

3

Trustee’s Sale and set the sale for November 14, 2011. Id., Exh. 5. The sale was initially

4

postponed, but finally occurred on January 13, 2012.

5

III. DISCUSSION

6
7
8

As a threshold matter, the Court may consider a failure to respond to a motion as
an admission that the motion has merit. Local Rule CR 7(b)(2). Perrie failed to respond
to the instant motion and the Court considers the failure an admission that the motion has

9

merit.
10
11
12
13
14

Motions to dismiss brought under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of
sufficient facts alleged under such a theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

15

The sole method to contest and enjoin a foreclosure sale is to file an action to

16

enjoin or restrain the sale in accordance with RCW 61.24.130. CHD, Inc. v. Boyles,

17

138 Wn. App. 131, 137 (2007). An individual waives his right to challenge a foreclosure

18

when he “(1) receives notice of the right to enjoin the sale, (2) has actual or constructive

19

knowledge of a defense to foreclosure before the sale, and (3) fails to bring an action to

20

obtain a court order enjoining the sale.” Id. (citing Plein v. Lackey, 149 Wn.2d 214, 227

21

(2003)).

22
23
24
25
26

In this case, Pierre waived his right to contest the foreclosure in this action. Perrie
receive notice of his right to enjoin the sale. See Dkt. 7, Exh. 5. Perrie had actual
knowledge of defenses to the foreclosure. See Dkt. 1 (the complaint). Perrie failed to
seek a court order enjoining the sale. Id. Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion
to dismiss Perrie’s claims.

27
28
ORDER - 2

IV. ORDER

1
2

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7) is

3

GRANTED and Perrie’s claims against OneWest, MERS, and Regional are

4

DISMISSED with prejudice.

5

DATED this 7th day of March, 2012.

6
7

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 3