Scott et al v. US Bank, NA et al
Filing
22
ORDER signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting 19 Motion to Remand; finding as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; finding as moot 15 Motion for Joinder. Per LCR 3(h), case will be remanded 14 days from date of this Order, on 8/23/2017. (TG)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
6
7
8
FLOYD SCOTT, et al.,
CASE NO. C17-5405 BHS
Plaintiffs,
9
10
v.
U.S. BANK, NA, et al.,
11
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND AND
DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT
Defendants.
12
13
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkts. 11,
14
15) and Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Dkt. 19). The Court has considered the pleadings
15
filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and, for
16
the reasons stated below, hereby (1) grants the motion to remand and (2) denies the
17
motions to dismiss as moot.
18
19
I.
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants in Clark County
20
Superior Court. Dkt. 1 at 2. On May 26, 2017, Defendants removed the action based on
21
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 1.
22
ORDER - 1
1
On June 2, 2017, Defendants Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
2
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., and U.S. Bank, N.A. moved to dismiss.
3
Dkt. 11. On June 8, 2017, Defendant North Cascade Trustee Services Inc. (“NTCS”) filed
4
a motion joining in its codefendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. 15.
5
On June 6, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to Clark County Superior
6
Court. Dkt. 19. On July 10, 2017, Defendants responded in opposition to Plaintiffs’
7
motion for remand. Dkt. 20.
8
9
II.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs move to remand the proceedings to state court on the basis that the
10
presence of MTC Financial Inc. (“MTC”) and NTCS in this case destroys the diversity
11
necessary for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs
12
have shown that MTC and NTCS are non-diverse parties and Defendants do not contend
13
otherwise. Instead, Defendants argue that diversity jurisdiction exists because either: (1)
14
MTC and NTCS are nominal defendants, or (2) MTC and NTCS were fraudulently
15
joined. The Court rejects both of these arguments.
16
“[A] federal court must disregard nominal or formal parties and rest jurisdiction
17
only upon the citizenship of real parties to the controversy.” Petheram v. Wells Fargo
18
Bank, C13-1016JLR, 2013 WL 4761049, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 3, 2013) (quoting
19
Navarro Sav. Ass’ n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 461 (1980)). While trustees are often treated as
20
nominal parties, “[a] trustee has been found to be a real party when a plaintiff’s complaint
21
asserts claims against a trustee, including . . . allegations that the trustee . . . was not the
22
trustee authorized to initiate non judicial foreclosure proceedings.” Beiermann v. JP
ORDER - 2
1
Morgan Chase Bank Nat. Ass’n, 3:11-CV-05952 RBL, 2012 WL 1377094, at *2 (W.D.
2
Wash. Apr. 19, 2012). Such is the case here, where Plaintiffs assert Washington
3
Consumer Protection Act claims against MTC and NTCS on the bases that they accepted
4
appointments as successor trustees that they knew were unlawful and subsequently
5
initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings despite knowing that they were not
6
properly authorized trustees. See Dkt. 1-2 at 9, 14–15.
7
Further, Plaintiff fraudulently joined MTC or NTCS. Joinder of a resident
8
defendant is fraudulent for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction only when: (1)
9
the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against a resident defendant and (2) the failure
10
is obvious according to the settled rules of the state. Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139
11
F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). In this case, it very well may be that Plaintiffs have
12
failed to state a claim against MTC and NTCS. Indeed, as argued in Defendants’ motion
13
to dismiss and accompanying request for judicial notice, it appears likely that U.S. Bank
14
appointed successor trustees under its lawful authority as the holder of the subject note.
15
See Dkts. 11, 11-1. However, the second prong of the fraudulent joinder test states that
16
“the non-diverse claim must not only be unsuccessful, it must be untenable ab initio.”
17
Davis v. Prentiss Properties Ltd., Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 1999). This
18
reflects the fact that the Court’s jurisdiction is a threshold issue: the Court cannot decide
19
the type of arguments advanced in Defendants’ motions to dismiss, which require
20
examining the merits of the claims in detail by taking judicial notice of applicable loan
21
documents, without jurisdictional authority.
22
ORDER - 3
1
Reviewing nothing but the allegations in the complaint that MTC and NTCS
2
accepted unlawful appointments as successor trustees and subsequently proceeded to act
3
on claims of default, Plaintiffs have alleged a tenable claim against non-diverse
4
defendants under the CPA. See Knecht v. Fid. Nat. Title Ins. Co., C12-1575RAJ, 2014
5
WL 4057148, at *8 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2014). Whether Plaintiffs’ allegations are
6
contradicted or unsupported by the very loan documents that they necessarily incorporate,
7
and therefore fail to state a claim, is a question to be resolved by a court with jurisdiction
8
to hear the parties’ dispute. That is not this Court.
9
III.
10
ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Dkt. 19) is
11
GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motions to dismiss (Dkts. 11, 15) are DENIED without
12
prejudice as moot. The Clerk shall REMAND this matter to Clark County Superior
13
Court.
14
Dated this 9th day of August, 2017.
A
15
16
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?