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.

Taylor v. MGC Mortgage, Inc.

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

June 14, 2018

ISOM R TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
MGC MORTGAGE INC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendants MGC Mortgage, Inc.'s, LNV Corporation's, and Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.'s (collectively, “Defendants” or “moving defendants”) motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 14. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Dkt. # 17. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The following is taken from Plaintiff's Complaint, which is assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion to dismiss. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007).

         Plaintiff claims that he began to experience financial difficulties in 2007 and these difficulties accelerated over the next few years. Dkt. # 12 (Amended Complaint) at ¶ 7. Plaintiff's financial state prevented him from keeping up with his current mortgage payments, leading him to seek out a loan modification. Id.

         Plaintiff argues that his monthly payments were too high because the loan originators overvalued the Subject Property and adjusted his household income to an inaccurately high level. See, e.g., Id. at ¶¶ 34, 43. He also claims that “Defendants' representatives misled [him] into believing that he would not be eligible for a loan modification unless [he] was delinquent in his monthly payments.” Id. at ¶ 11. But after defaulting on his payments, Defendants refused to modify his loan.

         The moving defendants are now before the Court seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Fed. R. 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, 504 F.3d at 910. 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).

         The court 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). The court may also consider evidence subject to judicial notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action against all Defendants without specifying which actions are attributable to each Defendant. All of these claims fail as alleged against the moving Defendants.

         First, Plaintiff claims that he is “concerned” that Defendants will foreclose on the Subject Property. Dkt. # 12 (Amended Complaint) at ¶ 17. Defendant's concern began in early 2015, but there is no evidence that any such foreclosure is-or has ever been- pending or even threatened. The Court may not grant declaratory relief when there is no controversy and therefore GRANTS Defendants' motion on this claim. See, e.g., Bisson v. Bank of America, N.A., 919 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1138-39 (W.D. Wash. 2013).

         Second, Plaintiff claims he signed the promissory note without knowing that the payment terms were unreasonable in light of his financial situation. Dkt. # 12 (Amended Complaint) at ¶ 25. He argues that he “is entitled to have his mortgage payment amount reformed to show the true intention of the parties.” Id. at ΒΆ 29. However, none of these allegations are directed toward the moving defendants; they are directed toward the original lenders. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS ...


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.