Rein et al v. Northwest Mortgage Group Inc et al

Filing 55

ORDER finding as moot 36 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time; finding as moot 37 Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Counsel; finding as moot 44 Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude; granting 46 Defendant Northwest Trustee's Mo tion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; finding as moot 50 Defendant DeShiell's Motion to Stay Discovery; granting 17 Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Wells Fargo Bank, and Lane Powell's Motion to Dismiss Party; granting 20 Defendant Northwest Mortgage Group's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; all claims for all Defendants are Dismissed with prejudice 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

JULIA REIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 14-5125
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

v.
SAKAE SAKAI, ANDREA DESHIELL,
ROBERT LEWIS, et al.,

[DKTS. #13, #17, #20, #36, #37, #44]

Defendants.

15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

17
18

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Northwest Trustee Services,

19

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Lane Powell PC, and

20

Northwest Mortgage Group, Inc.’s Motions to Dismiss,1 and on Plaintiff Julia Rein’s Motions for

21

Extension of Time (Dkt. #36), Court-Appointed Counsel (Dkt. #37), and Exclusion of Original

22

Complaint from Trial (Dkt. #44). In a prior state court case, Rein sued her creditors (and others

23

involved in her mortgage) in an effort to stop them from foreclosing on her home. Judge Robert
24

Lewis of Clark County Superior Court dismissed her claims with prejudice. Rein then sued the
25
26

1

Northwest Trustee Services’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #13); Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; and Lane Powell PC’s Motion to Dismiss
27
(Dkt. #17); and Northwest Mortgage Group, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #20).
28
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS - 1

1

original defendants from the state court lawsuit, and also sued Judge Lewis, his assistant, and

2

opposing counsel from the prior lawsuit. Rein alleges that all Defendants conspired to defeat her

3

in the earlier lawsuit and, in doing so, violated her civil rights.
4

Rein has filed an Amended Complaint without obtaining leave from the court (Dkt. #42).
5
6

In the Amended Complaint, Rein states that she only wishes to proceed against Defendants

7

Judge Lewis, Andrea DeShiell, and Sakae Sakai. She has also moved for an extension of time to

8

respond to defendants’ motions, for court-appointed counsel, and to exclude her original

9

complaint from trial.

10

Defendants Judge Lewis, Andrea DeShiell, and Sakae Sakai have been dismissed.

11

Because there is no cognizable legal theory to support any claims against Defendants Northwest
12

Trustee Services, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems; Wells Fargo Bank; Lane Powell, or
13
14

Northwest Mortgage Group, their Motions to Dismiss [Dkts. #13, #17, and #20] are GRANTED

15

and all claims against them are DISMISSED with prejudice. Rein’s remaining pending motions

16

[Dkts. #36, #37, and #44] are DENIED as moot.

17
18

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss

19

Rein’s Amended Complaint appears to voluntarily abandon her claims against Northwest
20
21

Trustee Services, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Lane

22

Powell PC, and Northwest Mortgage Group, Inc. Neither the Amended Complaint nor the

23

previous complaint alleged any wrongdoing by any of the companies. Accordingly, each has

24
25
26
27
28
[DKTS. #13, #17, #20, #36, #37, #44] - 2

1

moved to dismiss. To clear up any potential confusion, and because the Amended Complaint was

2

filed without leave, the Court addresses the defendants’ motions on their merits.2

3

1. Standard of Review
4

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal
5
6

theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v.

7

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A complaint must allege facts to state a

8

claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

9

A claim has “facial plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content that allows

10

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

11

alleged.” Id. Although the Court must accept as true a complaint’s well-pled facts, conclusory
12

allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an otherwise proper Rule 12(b)(6)
13
14

motion. Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell v. Golden State

15

Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’

16

of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

17

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to

18

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

19

(2007) (citations and footnote omitted). This requires a plaintiff to plead “more than an
20
21
22
23
24

unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing
Twombly).
On a 12(b)(6) motion, “a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to
amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured

25
26
27

2

Consistent with her abandoning the claims, Rein’s Amended Complaint does not allege
any new facts that could support claims against these remaining Defendants.

28
[DKTS. #13, #17, #20, #36, #37, #44] - 3

1

by the allegation of other facts.” Cook, Perkiss & Liehe v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242,

2

247 (9th Cir. 1990). However, where the facts are not in dispute, and the sole issue is whether

3

there is liability as a matter of substantive law, the court may deny leave to amend. Albrecht v.
4

Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195–96 (9th Cir. 1988). The purpose of the rule is to encourage decisions on
5
6
7

the merits rather than on the precision (or imprecision, as the case may be) of the pleadings. See
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).
2. Rein’s Civil Rights Claims Are Improperly Asserted Against Non-State
Actors, and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Bars Review of State Court
Decisions.

8
9
10

Rein’s lawsuit is a civil rights action. The Constitution’s protections of individual liberty

11

and equal protection generally apply only to government acts. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete
12

Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 619, 111 S.Ct. 2077 (1991). Private conduct is not controlled by the
13
14

Fourteenth Amendment unless significantly intertwined with state involvement. Kennebec, Inc.

15

v. Bank of the West, 88 Wn.2d 718, 721, 565 P.2d 812 (1977).

16
17
18

Furthermore, to the extent that Rein asks the Court to revisit the state court proceedings
in which NWTS was a party, the Court is barred from doing so by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court of

19

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983). A district court must give full faith and credit
20
21

to state court judgments, even if the state court erred by refusing to consider a party’s federal

22

claims. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293, 125 S.Ct.

23

1517 (2005).

24
25
26
27
28
[DKTS. #13, #17, #20, #36, #37, #44] - 4

1
2

3. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are Granted.

3

Northwest Trustee Services, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Wells Fargo
4

Bank, N.A., Lane Powell PC, and Northwest Mortgage Group, Inc. move to dismiss. Each argues
5
6

that Rein has failed to make any allegations against them, and that they cannot be sued for civil

7

rights violations because they are not state actors. Rein does not, and cannot, allege facts to show

8

that any defendant is a state actor or that its acts were intertwined with state acts. Each defendant

9

is a financial institution, and Rein does not allege any specific wrongdoing by any of them. Nor

10

can this Court revisit the state court action to which any defendant was a party—Rooker-

11

Feldman and res judicata doctrines bar this kind of review. Therefore, because there is no
12

cognizable legal theory to support the claims against them, all Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
13
14
15

are GRANTED and all claims against them are DISMISSED with prejudice.
B. Rein’s Motions for Court-Appointed Counsel, Extension of Time, and Exclusion
of Original Complaint at Trial are Moot.

16
17
18
19

Rein asks the Court to appoint counsel for her, for an extension to respond to the
Defendants’ most recent motions, and to exclude her original complaint from trial.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may request an attorney to represent any person

20

unable to afford counsel. Under §1915, the court may appoint counsel in exceptional

21

circumstances. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984). To find exceptional

22

circumstances, the court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of

23

the petitioner to articulate the claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues
24
25

involved. Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Rein cannot meet her burden of

26

showing any likelihood of success on the merits—indeed, all Rein’s claims have now been

27

dismissed with prejudice. Her application for court appointed counsel is DENIED.

28
[DKTS. #13, #17, #20, #36, #37, #44] - 5

1
2

The Court has dismissed all defendants. Because an extension of time would be moot, the
Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED. Because there will be no trial, the Motion to Exclude

3

from Trial is also DENIED as moot.
4

III.

CONCLUSION

5
6

Because there is no cognizable legal theory to support claims against Northwest Trustee

7

Services, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Lane Powell

8

PC, or Northwest Mortgage Group, Inc., their Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and all claims

9

against them are DISMISSED with prejudice. Because all defendants have now been dismissed,

10

Rein’s Motions for Court-Appointed Counsel, Extension of Time, and Exclusion of Original

11

Complaint from Trial are DENIED as moot. All other pending motions by any parties are also
12

DENIED as moot.
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18
19

Dated this 23rd day of April, 2014.

A
RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[DKTS. #13, #17, #20, #36, #37, #44] - 6