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.

Umouyo v. Bank of America, N.A.

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

April 28, 2017

HENRY A. UMOUYO, Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC; AND ANY UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, GRANTEES, CREDITORS, AND OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS OR UNKNOWN SPOUSES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH AND UNDER BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant.

          ORDER

          Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. # 10) and Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. # 12). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES both motions.

         II. BACKGROUND[1]

         On January 10, 2008, Plaintiff Henry A. Umouyo (“Plaintiff”) took out a mortgage loan for $329, 824.00 from CTX Mortgage Company, LLC. Dkt. # 1-1 at ¶ 11, Ex. 3. Plaintiff's loan is secured by a Deed of Trust (“DOT”) on real property, located at 11708 SE 238th Street, Unit 12, Kent, Washington (“Property”). Id. at ¶ 12, Ex. 4. The DOT was recorded on June 2, 2010 in King County, and was assigned to BAC Home Loans, Servicing LP, fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”). King County Auditor Instrument # 20100602000169. On the same day, an Appointment of Successor Trustee was assigned to Reconstrust Company, N.A. (“Reconstrust”). King County Auditor Instrument # 20100602000170. Then, on October 24, 2011, the DOT was assigned to Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). King County Auditor Instrument # 20111024001172.

         In August 2009, Plaintiff stopped paying his mortgage loan. Dkt. # 1-1 at ¶ 36, Ex. 2. On October 6, 2009, BAC, the servicer at the time, issued a Notice of Intent to Accelerate. Dkt. # 1-2. The Notice of Intent to Accelerate (“the Notice”) warned Plaintiff that “if the default is not cured on or before November 5, 2009, the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount remaining accelerated and becoming due and payable in full.” Id. In July 2010, a Notice of Trustee's Sale was recorded in King County, which set a trustee's sale of the Property for October 29, 2010. Id. at Ex. 8; King County Auditor Instrument # 20100729000513. However, on September 23, 2011, Recontrust discontinued the sale. Dkt. # 1-1 at ¶ 29; King County Auditor Instrument # 20110923000439.

         On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action in King County Superior Court, seeking to quiet title to the Property. Dkt. # 1-1. Plaintiff is a citizen of Washington State. Dkt. # 1-1. Defendant BANA is a citizen of North Carolina, where its main office is located. Dkt. # 1 at 3. Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC (“Carrington”) is a citizen of Delaware, California, and Connecticut.[2] Id. No members of Carrington or its subsidiary members are citizens of Washington. Id. Additionally, the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00. Dkt. # 1-1, Ex. 3; Dkt. # 1 at 3. Noting that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 were met, Defendants timely removed the action. Dkt. # 1. On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand. Dkt. # 10. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. # 12.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Judicial Notice[3]

         Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of certain documents. Among these documents are: (1) an assignment of deed of trust, King County Auditor Instrument # 20100602000169; (2) an appointment of successor trustee, King County Auditor Instrument # 20100602000170; (3) an assignment of deed of trust, King County Auditor Instrument # 20111024001172; (4) a notice of trustee's sale, King County Auditor Instrument # 20100729000513; (5) a notice of discontinuance of trustee's sale, King County Auditor Instrument # 20110923000439; and (6) BANA's judicial foreclosure action against Plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A. v. Umouyo, et al., No. 14-2-18637-1. Each of these documents is available at http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/auditor.aspx or http://www.courts.wa.gov/.

         Under Rule 201, a court may take judicial notice of “a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201. Certain public records qualify under the second category, including the “records and reports of administrative bodies.” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Interstate Nat. Gas Co. v. S. Cal. Gas Co., 209 F.2d 380, 385 (9th Cir. 1953)).

         Here, the contents of these documents are not subject to reasonable dispute, as they “are authentic documents recorded with a governmental agency.” Gelinas v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. 16-1468-JLR, 2017 WL 553277, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2017). Therefore, the Court takes judicial notice of the foregoing publically recorded King County documents.

         B. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand

         “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Heacock v. Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, LP, No. C16-0829-JCC, 2016 WL 4009849, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 27, 2016); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332. District courts have “original jurisdiction” over causes of action “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000” and where there is complete diversity between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Complete diversity exists when the parties are domiciled in separate states. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). An individual is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled, not his state of residence. Id. A “corporation is a citizen of any state where it is incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business.” Heacock, 2016 WL 4009849, at *1 (quoting Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. ...


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.