United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
MARTA D. LYALL, Plaintiff,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; TRUMAN TITLE 2013 SC3 TITLE TRUST; TRUMAN CAPITAL ADVISORS, LP; RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; DITECH HOME LOAN SERVICING; CWABS MASTER TRUST, REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2004-"O"; CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON; WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER OF KING COUNTY; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-100, Defendants.
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Defendants Rushmore Loan
Management Services, LLC (“Rushmore”), and U.S.
Bank National Association as Legal Title Trustee for Truman
2013 SC3 Title Trust's (erroneously sued as U.S. Bank
National Association, Truman Title 2013 SC3 Title Trust,
Truman Capital Advisors, L.P.; hereinafter the “Loan
Trust”) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 87. Plaintiff filed a
late response in opposition to the motion that far exceeds
the page limitations dictated by this Court's Local
Rules. LCR 7(e)(3) (limiting Plaintiff's response to
twenty-four pages). Therefore, when considering the response,
the Court may exercise its discretion to limit its inquiry to
the first twenty-four pages. The Court is also in receipt of
the parties' briefs arguing whether the Court should
convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction, as well as
Plaintiff's request for extension of time to file her
response to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. ## 92, 96, 97.
reviewed the briefs, relevant portions of the record, and the
applicable law, the Court GRANTS
Defendants' motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 87. The Court
DISSOLVES the injunction.
parties are well versed in the relevant history of this case.
At issue is whether Plaintiff has properly alleged her claims
against Defendants. Moreover, the Court must determine
whether the TRO currently in place should convert into a
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations
and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those
allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910
(9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true
conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents
referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations
that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint
avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts
consistent with the allegations in the complaint” that
would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563;
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of
the complaint, although it may rely on a document to which
the complaint refers if the document is central to the
party's claims and its authenticity is not in question.
Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006).
A court may also consider evidence subject to judicial
notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908
(9th Cir. 2003).
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff lodges claims against Defendants
to quiet title, for fraud, and for violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Dkt. # 16 (Amended Complaint) at 24-53.
person having a valid subsisting interest in real property,
and a right to the possession thereof, may recover the same
by action in” court. RCW 7.28.010 (describing who may
maintain such actions). “The plaintiff in an action to
quiet title must succeed on the strength of his own title and
not on the weakness of his adversary.” Desimone v.
Spence, 318 P.2d 959, 961 (1957); see also Robertson
v. GMAC Mortg. LLC, 982 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1208 (W.D. Wash.
quiet title action fails as a matter of law because she has
defaulted on the mortgage. Dkt. # 16 (Amended Complaint) at
26-27. Her Amended Complaint seeks to invalidate her mortgage
agreement due to a fraudulent scheme allegedly devised by
Defendants. However, even if these facts were true, they do
not give credence to a claim for quiet title when Plaintiff
does not have superior title. Therefore, the Court
DISMISSES the quiet title claims as alleged