United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ALAN JOHNSON and STACEY URNER, individually and as husband and wife, Plaintiffs,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., a foreign corporation, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, as successor trustee thereof; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC., a foreign corporation, and all persons claiming any interest in the property described in the Deed of Trust or in the Obligation secured thereby, DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND AND MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
ROBERT J. BRYAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Third Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 61) and Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.’s (“SPS”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 56). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the file herein.
This cases arises from a mortgage Plaintiffs took out on real property located in Gig Harbor, Washington and their various attempts at getting a loan modification. Dkts. 1. Defendant SPS now moves for dismissal of the claims against it pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Dkt. 56. Plaintiffs move to amend their complaint. Dkt. 61.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion to amend (Dkt. 61) should be granted and the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 56) should be denied.
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case was originally filed on July 28, 2014. Dkt. 1. On August 20, 2014, Quality Loan Services Corp. of Washington (“Quality”) moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 14. Plaintiffs responded, and moved to amend their Complaint. Dkts. 15 and 18. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend was granted (Dkt. 23) and Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26). Quality’s Second Motion to Dismiss was granted on October 30, 2014, and Plaintiffs were given another opportunity to file a motion to amend the Amended Complaint, if they wished. Dkt. 33. Plaintiffs responded, the motion to amend was denied as to Quality, but granted as to the other Defendants. Dkt. 45, at 9. Plaintiff filed their Second Amended Complaint on March 6, 2015. Dkt. 54.
B. FACTS ABOUT SPS ALLEGED IN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS SPS
In regard to SPS, the Second Amended Complaint alleged that:
SPS is a foreign corporation doing business in Pierce County, Washington, with continuous, systematic contacts in and with the State of Washington, and specifically here, as the Beneficiary’s authorized agent servicing the mortgage loan secured by the property at issue in this action. SPS appears on plaintiff Johnson’s credit report as having reported the default and foreclosure.
Dkt. 54, at 2. No further allegations against SPS were made in the Second Amended Complaint.
Defendant SPS moved to dismiss the claims against it pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to state a claim against them. Dkt. 56. Plaintiffs did not directly dispute that the Second Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for relief against Defendant SPS. Dkt. 57. Instead, Plaintiffs moved the Court for leave to amend their Second Amended Complaint. Id. Plaintiffs argued that they have finally received a modification on their loan, but since then, SPS has violated TILA, RESPA, and other statutes. Id. Plaintiffs did not include a proposed Third Amended Complaint for the Court to review.
Accordingly, the Court renoted the motion to dismiss, and ordered the Plaintiffs to file a copy of their proposed Third Amended Complaint. Dkt. 60. Plaintiffs filed the instant Third Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 61), and included their proposed Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 60-1). SPS’s ...