Federal National Mortgage Association v. Ahn et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 30 Counterdefendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; Counterdefendant Everhome has 10 days to contact the Court if any claim remains pending under the initial unlawful detainer claim, otherwise it will be dismissed and the case will be closed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

CASE NO. C14-5063 RBL
ORDER GRANTING
COUNTERDEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

11

Plaintiff,
12

v.

13
14

SUNG SOOK AHN and GREGORY S.
TIFT,

[DKT. # 30]

15

Defendants,
16
17
18

and
SUNG SOOK AHN and GREGORY S.
TIFT,

19

Counterclaimants,
20
21
22
23
24

v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Counterdefendants.

25
26
27
28
ORDER - 1

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Counterdefendant1 Everhome’s’ Motion for

1
2

Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 30]. Everhome seeks dismissal of Ahn’s and Tift’s counterclaims

3

against it. Ahn and Tift have not filed a Response. As it is permitted to do under Celotex Corp.
4

v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986), Everhome points out that there is no evidence to support
5
6

Plaintiffs’ claims against them.
The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party

7
8
9

fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case upon which it bears the
burden of proof. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586

10

(1986). Ahn and Tift bear the burden of proof on each element of each of their counterclaims.
11
12

Because Ahn and Tift failed to establish the existence of a material issue of fact on any of these

13

elements and any of these claims, the Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. All of Ahn

14

and Tift’s counterclaims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

15

//

16
17
18
19

//
//
//

20
21

//

22
23
24

1

Plaintiff Everhome commenced an unlawful detainer action against Defendant Ahn in
state court after a foreclosure. Ahn and her “advocate,” Tift, asserted counterclaims against
25
Everhome and a variety of other entities involved in the loan and the foreclosure. The Court
26 previously dismissed all of Ahn’s claims against a different subset of Counterdefendants [see
Dkt. #29].
For clarity, in this Order the name “Everhome” refers to all of the remaining
27
counterdefendants.
28
ORDER - 2

1
2

It is not clear whether Everhome’s initial unlawful detainer claim remains pending in this
Court. The court will DISMISS that claim and CLOSE the case unless Everhome notifies the

3

court that any claim remains pending within 10 days of this Order.
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated this 20th day of October, 2014.

7
8
9

A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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