Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coble v. Suntrust Mortgage Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

September 9, 2014

JACQUE F. COBLE and KATHLEEN L. COBLE, Plaintiff,
v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER

JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Northwest Trustee's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 52), Defendant Safeguard's Joinder in the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 54), Defendant LPS Field Services' Joinder in the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 55), and Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response Briefs (Dkt. No. 64). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS N.W. Trustee's motion, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants Safeguard and LPS Field Services' motions, and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time for the reasons explained herein. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

The background of this case is described in the previous order and is not recited in detail here. In brief, this action concerns two properties purchased by Plaintiffs-a "Residential Property" and a "Rental Property." Plaintiffs obtained loans secured by Deeds of Trust, which listed MERS as the "Beneficiary, " SunTrust as the "Lender, " and Washington Administrative Services, Inc., as the "Trustee." SunTrust later purported to appoint N.W. Trustee as the trustee for both properties. Defendants Safeguard and LPS Field Services were involved in propertypreservation services related to the Rental Property.

3. Action in this Court

Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on November 19, 2013. (Dkt. No. 37.) The Court granted N.W. Trustee's motion to dismiss, but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend "to allege facts supporting their claim that SunTrust was not the holder of the note at the relevant times and that N.W. Trustee knew of any relevant legal defect." (Dkt. No. 47 at 7.) Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on March 20, 2014. (Dkt. No. 50.) Against N.W. Trustee, Plaintiffs claims are again violations of Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24, Foreclosure Violations of Deed of Trust Act (Dkt. No. 50 at 36-39), Misrepresentation (Dkt. No. 50 at 40-41), and violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") (Dkt. No. 50 at 42-45). Plaintiffs allege that N.W. Trustee knew or should have known that SunTrust lacked authority to appoint N.W. Trustee as a trustee and that N.W. Trustee violated its duty of good faith (Dkt. No. 50 ¶ 8.11), which forms the basis for the claims of violations of the Deed of Trust Act and of misrepresentation, which are in turn violations of the CPA. Against Safeguard and LPS Field Services, Plaintiffs bring claims of trespass and property damage, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, conversion of personal property, breach of the right to possession, negligence, and violations of the CPA. (Dkt. No. 50 at 29, 31, 34.)

NW Trustee has filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 52), which Safeguard and LPS Field Services have joined. (Dkt. Nos. 55, 64.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard on Motion to Dismiss

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court assumes that a plaintiff's factual allegations are true and draws all reasonable inferences in a plaintiff's favor. See OSU Student Alliance v. Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2012). "While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 550 (2007). If the Court dismisses the complaint, the Court should consider whether to grant leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The court should "freely give" leave to amend "when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).

B. Documents Relied Upon

A court may not consider "matters outside the pleadings" when ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Fed. R. 12(d); see also United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011). A court may, however, "consider materials that are submitted with and attached to the Complaint." Id. A court "may also consider unattached evidence on which the complaint 2017necessarily relies if: (1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the document." Id. (internal citation omitted).

C. Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to Strike

The local rules direct that motions for relief from deadlines should be filed in advance of the deadline and parties must comply with existing deadlines absent a court order. W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(j). The federal rules provide that a court may grant a time-extension request made after a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.