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.

Edwards v. Caliber Home Loans

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

June 7, 2017

ARCHIE T. EDWARDS and PATRICIA L. EDWARDS, Plaintiffs,
v.
CALIBER HOME LOANS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendants'[1] second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Dkt. No. 32) and motion to take judicial notice (Dkt. No. 33). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motions for the reasons explained herein.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises out of a dispute regarding a residential mortgage loan obtained by Plaintiffs in 2007. (Dkt. No. 17 at 1-2.) Following the default on their loan, and with a non- judicial foreclosure pending, Plaintiffs initiated this suit to prevent Defendants from foreclosing on the property. In June 2007, Plaintiffs borrowed $312, 800.00 from Quicken Loans, Inc. (Quicken). (Dkt. No. 18-1 at 2-16.) The loan was secured by a deed of trust against Plaintiffs' primary residence, with Quicken as the lender and MERS as the beneficiary. (Id.) On July 21, 2011 the deed of trust was assigned from MERS to OneWest Bank, FSB (OneWest). (Id. at 24.) On July 26, 2011, OneWest appointed Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (NWTS) as trustee under the deed of trust through the recording of an appointment of successor trustee. (Id. at 30.) On August 21, 2013, the deed of trust was assigned from OneWest to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen). (Id. at 26.)

         On March 21, 2016, a notice of trustee's sale was entered in the Snohomish County official records, listing a foreclosure date of July 22, 2016. (Id. at 32.) The notice of trustee's sale indicated that Plaintiffs were $127, 098.88 in arrears on the loan. (Id. at 33.) On April 27, 2016 the deed of trust was assigned from Ocwen to U.S. Bank. (Id. at 28.) On October 5, 2016, U.S. Bank appointed Defendant Trustee Corps as successor trustee under the deed of trust. (Id. at 38.)

         Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint. (Dkt. No. 17.) On December 12, 2016, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims regarding Defendant U.S. Bank's authority to foreclose, quiet title, violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and declaratory judgment. (Dkt. No. 25.) Specifically, this Court found the following:

(1) Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim challenging U.S. Bank's authority to foreclose because it did not allege that U.S. Bank failed to meet the statutory definition of “beneficiary” (id. at 4);
(2) Plaintiffs' CPA claims against Defendants Caliber and MERS failed because the complaint did not allege a sufficient injury (id. at 4-5); and
(3) Plaintiffs' quiet title action failed because they could not demonstrate they had satisfied their obligations under the loan (id. at 4).

         Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend all claims save for their quiet title claim, which was dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 4-5.)

         Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on April 7, 2017. (Dkt. No. 31.) The first amended complaint alleges that U.S. Banks does not have standing to foreclose, and restates its claim for declaratory judgment to declare Defendant Caliber in violation of the CPA. (Id.) The first amended complaint does not allege any causes of action against Defendant MERS. (Id.)

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Judicial Notice

         As an initial matter, Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of a notice of discontinuance of trustee's sale recorded in Snohomish County records on November 29, 2016 pursuant to Evidence Rule 201. (Dkt. No. 33 at 1-2.) The document is a Snohomish County record and thus can be accurately or readily determined from a source whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. Fed.R.Evid. 201. Plaintiffs do not dispute the accuracy, but rather argue that the document was “cherry picked.” (Dkt. No. 35 at 2.) This is not a valid objection, and as the Court noted in a previous order, Plaintiffs were free to submit whatever documents they felt were appropriate for judicial ...


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.