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.

Pickering v. Bank of America Home Loans

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

January 24, 2017

STEPHANIE L. PICKERING and TERRY A. O'KEEFE, Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”)'s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #41. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion and dismisses this case.

         II. BACKGROUND[1]

         A. Factual Background

         In July of 2008, Plaintiffs Stephanie L. Pickering and Terri A. O'Keefe executed a negotiable promissory note and a security interest in the form of a Deed of Trust in the amount of $210, 000 in favor of Golf Savings Bank/JP Morgan Chase. On or about June, 2009, Plaintiffs refinanced and executed a negotiable promissory note and Deed of Trust for $207, 000 with one or more Defendants. Plaintiffs experienced financial difficulties and appear to have defaulted on their mortgage in July of 2011. Plaintiffs contacted Defendant BANA and requested mortgage assistance; instead they entered into a “Special Forbearance Agreement.” Plaintiffs allege that they satisfied this agreement and qualify for a loan modification. However, BANA “is threatening foreclosure” and state that Plaintiffs owe $72, 769.02.

         B. Procedural Background

         On December 16, 2015, Plaintiffs Stephanie L. Pickering and Terri A. O'Keefe brought this action against Defendants Bank of America Home Loans, Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), Quality Loan Service Corporation of Washington (“QLS”), Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) and Does 1-10 under several causes of action for mishandling of Plaintiffs' loan modification application. See Dkt. #1 at 1-5. On May 26, 2016, the Court granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by QLS giving Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to rectify the factual deficiencies described in the Order. Dkt. #18. Plaintiffs filed their first Amended Complaint on June 16, 2016. Dkt. #22.

         Meanwhile, on March 24, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a parallel action in this court under case number 16-cv-427-JLR. This second action was brought against Defendants Bank of America Home Loans, BANA, and Does 1-5, and listed the following causes of action: Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Justifiable Reliance. Case No. 16-cv-427-JLR, Dkt. #1.

         On May 27, 2016, BANA moved the Court to consolidate these cases, and on July 11, 2016, the Court granted this Motion. Dkt. #28. On August 18, 2016, the Court granted QLS' second Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all claims against them with prejudice. Dkt. #32. The Court then ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. Dkt. #37.

         Plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated Complaint (“Complaint”) in this matter on October 24, 2016. Dkt. #40. On November 14, 2016, Defendant BANA filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, noted for the Court's consideration on December 16, 2016. Dkt. #41. Plaintiffs filed their Response on December 8, 2016, and BANA filed its Reply brief on December 16, 2016. Dkts. #43 and 44. On January 9, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Surreply. Dkt. #45.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         In making a 12(b)(6) assessment, the court accepts all facts alleged in the complaint as true, and makes all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Baker v. Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). However, the court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This requirement is met when the plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The complaint need not include detailed allegations, but it must ...


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.