Firth v. Zone Funding et al

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle denying 19 Motion to Amend and closing case. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8 PATTY M. FIRTH,
9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 ZONE FUNDING, et al.,
12

CASE NO. C15-5738 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Patty Firth’s (“Firth”) motion to

15 amend complaint (Dkt. 19).
16

On December 17, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and

17 granted Firth leave to amend her complaint. Dkt. 16. On December 31, 2015, Firth filed
18 a motion to amend. Dkt. 19. Firth raises two arguments that courts have repeatedly
19 concluded fail to state a claim. First, Firth argues Mortgage Electronic Registration
20 Systems’ (“MERS”) involvement in the initiation of her loan constitutes a violation of the
21 Washington Deed of Trust Act and Washington Consumer Protection Act. While it is
22 true that MERS’s involvement violates some elements of these acts, Firth must also

ORDER - 1

1 allege harm as a result of this involvement. Firth has failed to allege resulting harm in
2 any of her numerous complaints in federal or state court. Therefore, the Court denies
3 leave to amend this claim because it is futile.
4

Second, Firth raises the “show me the note” argument. Courts have routinely held

5 that this “show me the note” argument lacks merit. Wallis v. IndyMac Federal Bank, et
6 al., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 2000 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (citing cases). Therefore, the Court
7 denies leave to amend this claim because it is futile and DENIES Firth’s motion. Firth’s
8 complaint and claims are DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk shall close this
9 case.
10

Dated this 4th day of February, 2016.

A

11
12

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2