United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Marsha J. Pechman, Chief United States District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Green Tree Servicing LLC and Federal National Mortgage Association's (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 7.) Having reviewed the Parties' briefing and all related papers, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed this suit on November 28, 2014, alleging violations of several statutes in connection with Defendants' scheduled non-judicial foreclosure on their property. (Dkt. No. 1.)
Plaintiffs allege violation of 12 C.F.R. § 226.39, part of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), breach of contract in connection with 15 U.S.C. § 1635, violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, civil conspiracy, and assert claims for declaratory relief and to quiet title. Plaintiffs' main contention is that Defendants do not have adequate proof of ownership of the debt and, therefore, cannot foreclose on the property. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 8–9.) Defendants now move to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. No. 7.)
I. Legal Standard
A. Dismissal Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court must accept all well-pleaded allegations of material fact as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998).
Dismissal is appropriate where a complaint fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). As a result, a complaint must contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
II. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 7.)
A. Quiet Title
Plaintiffs' first cause of action seeks to quiet title to their property and seeks a declaration that “the title to the Subject Property is vested solely in Plaintiff and that Defendants have no right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the Property and that Defendants and each of them be forever enjoined from asserting any right, title, lien or interest in the Property adverse to Plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 16.) Plaintiffs argue Defendants must cease foreclosure proceedings on the property because “none of the Defendants are the holder of the [promissory] Note, and none of them can prove that the Note is secured by the Deed of Trust. . . .” (Id.) Defendants argue Plaintiffs' claim to quiet title is both legally deficient and inadequately pleaded: Defendants are not, and could not be, asserting an ownership interest in or a right to ...