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.

Blanchard v. North Cascade Trustee Services, Inc.

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

April 4, 2018

ANNETTE BLANCHARD, Plaintiff,
v.
NORTH CASCADE TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          Honorable Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Court Judge.

         The Court, having received and reviewed:

         1. Defendants' Motion for Dismissal (Dkt. No. 32), 2. Motion of Defendant North Cascade Trustee Services, Inc. Joining in Co-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 33)[1]

         all attached declarations and exhibits, and relevant portions of the record, rules as follows:

         IT IS ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.

         Background

         This case has a lengthy procedural history, beginning with a mortgage default in February 2013, continuing through numerous bankruptcy filings and culminating in the filing of a series of lawsuits, of which this is merely the latest.[2] Plaintiff has twice been ordered in the instant matter to serve Defendants in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCPs)-she first responded by filing unexecuted waivers of service (Dkt. No. 28) and most recently filed a “Proof of Service” indicating that the “Complaint and Request for Injunction” were mailed to Defendants. (Dkt. No. 31.)

         Defendants bring this motion seeking dismissal on pursuant to FRCP 4(m), and FRCP 12(b)(2) and (b)(5) (lack of personal jurisdiction); FRCP 12(b)(1) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction); and FRCP 12(b)(6) (failure to properly state a claim). Plaintiff has filed no response to the motion.

         Discussion

         Lack of personal jurisdiction

         This matter was originally filed on July 25, 2017 (Dkt. No. 5), and an amended complaint was filed on August 17, 2017. Dkt. No. 12. FRCP 4(m) states that Plaintiff must serve Defendants within 90 days following filing of a complaint, or be subject to dismissal without prejudice. Despite being given multiple opportunities to properly serve Defendants (see Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, and 30), Plaintiff has failed to establish proper, timely proof of service in compliance with FRCP 4. Nor has she obtained and filed waivers of service from those parties.

         The result is that this Court is unable to exercise personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants. In conformity with FRCP 4(m) (having given Plaintiff multiple opportunities to cure), the Court is required to dismiss her action.

         Lack of subject matter jurisdiction

         A federal district court has original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the amount in controversy is greater than $75, 000 and the dispute arises between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff does not claim diversity as ...


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.