United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed
by Defendants U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Stanwich
Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2012-3 (“U.S. Bank”),
Elizabeth Osterman (“Osterman”) and Carrington
Mortgage Services, LLC (“Carrington”). Dkt. #39.
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS
Defendants' Motion and dismisses Plaintiff's claims
Factual Background 
about November 28, 2006, Plaintiff Frederic Lehrman sought
and obtained a loan for $530, 400 related to his real
property located at 13609 SE 58th Place, Bellevue,
Washington. He states he was never informed of the true
identity of the actual lender that funded that loan. On April
24, 2013, a Notice of Default issued as to this loan. A
trustee sale was scheduled for March 27, 2014. Plaintiff
asserts that there is no legitimate deed of trust or note
that evidences a debt owed by the plaintiff, and that there
is no competent chain of title to establish standing for any
defendant to assert claims against the plaintiff or his real
attaches a loan auditor's analysis of the history of the
alleged loan in this action. The “lender” in this
report is listed as “Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.” Dkt.
#1-1 at 43. The report appears to indicate that an assignment
of the loan in favor of Defendants was recorded on January
24, 2013, effective March 29, 2012. Dkt. #1-1 at 52.
Complaint was originally filed on March 27, 2014, in King
County Superior Court. Dkt. #1-1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
named as defendants U.S. Bank in its capacity as trustee of
the Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2012-3, the
securitized trust which owns Plaintiff's loan; Elizabeth
A. Osterman; and Carrington Mortgage Services, the former
servicer of the Loan. Id. Plaintiff brings six
claims: (1) wrongful initiation of nonjudicial foreclosure
under Washington's Deed Trust Act, RCW 61.24 et seq.; (2)
fraud; (3) slander of title; (4) declaratory judgment; (5)
negligence; and (6) violation of Washington State's
Consumer Protection Act. Id. Plaintiff's
Complaint alleges that “[n]one of the defendants has
standing to assert claims against the plaintiff or his real
property, and they are strangers to this loan
transaction.” Id. at 19. The Complaint alleges
that Defendants “are complicit in supporting a
fraudulent, illegal, void nonjudicial foreclosure of the
plaintiff's real property.” Id. The
Complaint asserts that the Court should “require the
defendants to participate in vigorous discovery before any
pre-trial motion practice is considered for disposition of
this action.” Id.
this case was removed to this Court on April 23, 2014, the
action was stayed pending resolution of the receivership of
former defendant Regional Trustee Services Corporation
(“RTS”). Dkt. #23. On September 20, 2016, this
Court issued its Order lifting the stay of proceedings. Dkt.
#36. The instant Motion was filed on December 28, 2016. Dkt.
#39. Plaintiff's Response was filed on January 11, 2017,
with a Reply filed by Defendants on January 17, 2016. Dkts.
#40 and #41. There has been no further activity in this case.
A. Legal Standard
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 have “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. Absent facial
plausibility, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed.
Id. at 570.
complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim,
“leave to amend should be granted unless the court
determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with
the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the
deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well
Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff's Request in Response Brief to ...