ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
Before the court are Defendants Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), and Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.'s ("NWTS") motions to dismiss Plaintiff William Petheram's amended complaint (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 29)). (Mot. (Dkt. # 32); Joinder in Mot. (Dkt. # 34).) Having reviewed the motions, the untimely declaration of Plaintiff's attorney opposing the motions (Sandlin 3d Decl. (Dkt. # 40)), Defendants' replies (Reply (Dkt. # 36); Joinder in Reply (Dkt. # 37)), the balance of the record, and the applicable law, and considering itself fully advised, the court GRANTS the motions to dismiss.
Mr. Petheram obtained a loan in January 2008 secured by the property at issue. (Roesch 2d Decl. (Dkt. # 14) Ex. 1.) Mr. Petheram defaulted on the loan. ( See id. Exs. 6, 8.) In May 2011, Mr. Petheram and Wells Fargo agreed to a loan modification. ( See id. Ex. 11.) Mr. Petheram again defaulted. ( See id. Ex. 14.) On June 3, 2013, Mr. Petheram filed the instant lawsuit. ( See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-2).) The subject property was sold, however, at a trustee's sale on July 12, 2013. ( See 9/3/13 Order (Dkt. # 26) at 2 n.1.) The court dismissed Mr. Petheram's complaint, but granted him leave to amend certain causes of action. ( See id. at 14.)
On September 17, 2013, Mr. Petheram filed an amended complaint renewing his claims of fraud, slander of title, and violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act (the "CPA"), and adding a claim of wrongful foreclosure. ( See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23-28.) Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint. (Mot.; Joinder to Mot.)
A. The Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction
At the outset, Mr. Petheram renews his objection to this court's jurisdiction. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) In an attempt to destroy diversity, Mr. Petheram asserts that NWTS "is much more than an incidental or nominal defendant, given its violation of its fiduciary duties to the plaintiff to ensure that a wrongful foreclosure did not occur in this action...." ( Id. (citing Klem v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 295 P.3d 1179, 1188 (Wash. 2013)).) This conclusory assertion misapplies the Klem standard and ignores the Washington Deed of Trust Act, which specifically states that a "trustee or successor trustee shall have no fiduciary duty or fiduciary obligation to... persons having an interest in the property subject to the deed of trust" ("DOT"). RCW 61.24.010(3); see also Robertson v. GMAC Mortg. LLC, No. C12-2017MJP, 2013 WL 1898216, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 6, 2013). Accordingly, NWTS does not owe Mr. Petheram a fiduciary duty and, as such, Mr. Petheram's assertion has no legal basis. Furthermore, Mr. Petheram again "fails to make any valid substantive allegations against NWTS sufficient to make it more than a nominal defendant" as discussed in the court's previous order. (9/3/13 Order at 6.) Thus, NWTS is a "nominal" party for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction. See Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867, 873 (9th Cir. 2000); S.E.C. v. Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 676 (9th Cir. 1998).
B. Mr. Petheram's Allegations
Even though Mr. Petheram has amended his complaint, he still fails to allege any cognizable claims for relief. Mr. Petheram alleges four causes of action: (1) fraud, (2) slander of title, (3) violations of the CPA, and (4) wrongful foreclosure. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24-27.) Each of these causes of action is premised on Mr. Petheram's conclusory assertions that Defendants acted without legal authority,  which in turn rehash the wellworn "show me the note" and "split the note" theories that this court ruled against in its previous dismissal ( see 9/3/13 Order at 7-8). The Washington Supreme Court has "explicitly held that MERS may act as an agent of the note-holder." Zhong v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp. of Wash., No. C13-0814JLR, 2013 WL 5530583, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 7, 2013) (citing Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Grp., Inc., 285 P.3d 34, 47 (Wash. 2012)). Mr. Petheram has not provided any new legal basis for challenging Wells Fargo or NWTS's authority to act as they did. Moreover, Mr. Petheram's new conclusory allegations add nothing substantive to his causes of action that was not addressed in the court's previous order. Thus, the court's initial reasons for dismissing Mr. Petheram's first complaint still apply.
The court previously dismissed Mr. Petheram's fraud claim because "Mr. Petheram d[id] not allege the nature of the alleged fraud with particularity." (9/3/13 Order at 11.) Mr. Petheram now claims that Defendants acted through "forged documentation issued without authority to establish defendant Wells Fargo Bank as a subsequent DOT beneficiary... when MERS did not provide its own officer to execute any assignments of the DOT, and where Wells Fargo Bank rewarded the deception of defendant NWTS by appointing it as the subsequent trustee for the DOT." (Am. Compl. at 15-16.) This allegation rehashes the "split the note" theory, which this court rejected in its previous dismissal. ( See 9/3/13 Order at 7-8, 10-12.) The new complaint again relies on "a myriad of conclusory accusations and unsupported legal conclusions" that this court has already rejected. ( Id. at 11.) Moreover, Mr. Petheram still "pleads ...