United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES JUDGE
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.
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
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.
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
moving defendants are now before the Court seeking dismissal
of all of Plaintiff's claims.
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).
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).
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
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.
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 ¶ 29. However,
none of these allegations are directed toward the moving
defendants; they are directed toward the original lenders.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS ...