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.

Hewitt v. Quality Loan Services

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

July 22, 2019

HENRY and NANCY HEWITT, Plaintiffs,
v.
QUALITY LOAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE, STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINTS, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND RENOTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

          BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendants “Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Wells Fargo Bank National Association as Trustee for Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2006-FR1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-FR1 (“the Trust”), and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.'s (“SPS”)” (collectively “Defendants”) motion to dismiss, Dkt. 17, Plaintiffs Henry and Nancy Hewitt's (“Hewitts”) amended complaint, Dkt. 20, Defendants' motion to strike unauthorized second amended complaint, Dkt. 22, Defendants' motion for sanctions, Dkt. 24, the Hewitts' amended complaint, Dkt. 28, the Hewitts' motion for a temporary restraining order, Dkt. 29, and the Hewitts' motion for order, Dkt. 30. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby rules as follows:

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On February 8, 2019, the Hewitts filed an amended complaint in Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington against Quality Loan Services (“QLS”), Wells Fargo Bank, Select Portfolio Services, and John Does 1-10. Dkt. 1-1. On April 11, 2019, Defendants removed the matter to this Court. Dkt. 1. Defendants contend that the Hewitts failed to properly name them and that they do not object to substitution of their correct corporate names to “ensure clarity in this proceeding.” Id. at n.1, n.2.[1]

         On May 30, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss requesting that the Court dismiss the Hewitts' claims based on the doctrine of res judicata. Dkt. 17. The Hewitts did not respond, which the Court may consider as an admission that the motion has merit. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2).

         On June 12, 2019, the Hewitts filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 20. On June 19, 2019, Defendants moved to strike the complaint. Dkt. 22. The Hewitts did not respond, which the Court may consider as an admission that the motion has merit. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(2).

         On July 3, 2019, Defendants moved for sanctions. Dkt. 24. On July 18, 2019, Defendants replied stating that the Hewitts had failed to timely respond. Dkt. 26. On July 19, 2019, the Hewitts responded, Dkt. 27, filed another amended complaint, Dkt. 28, filed a motion for temporary restraining order, Dkt. 29, and filed a motion for order, Dkt. 30, which is essentially the Hewitts' proposed temporary restraining order.[2]

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         In 2011, the Hewitts sued Wells Fargo Bank alleging among other claims a wrongful foreclosure. Hewitt v. Wells Fargo Bank, Cause No. C11-05147-BHS. The suit ended in a settlement that voided the foreclosure and restored the deed of trust to the Hewitts under a loan modification agreement. Defendants assert that the Hewitts breached their obligations under the settlement, and in 2017 the Trust initiated new nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. Dkt. 17 at 6.

         In 2018, the Hewitts sued the Trust in state court alleging numerous causes of action including breach of contract and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Dkt. 18-3. On November 2, 2018, the Trust moved for summary judgment on all of the Hewitts' claims. Dkt. 18-4. On November 30, 2018, the court granted the motion and dismissed all of the Hewitts' claims with prejudice as a matter of law. Dkt. 18-6.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Motion to Strike

         Defendants move to strike the Hewitts' amended complaint because the Hewitts failed to either obtain the “opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). The Court agrees and grants Defendants' motion. Under the same rationale, the Court sua sponte strikes the Hewitts' other amended complaint, Dkt. 28.

         B. ...


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.