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.

Rahman v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.

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

August 5, 2019

IBRAHIM RAHMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC, MERRILL LYNCH & COMPANY, FREDDIE MAC AS TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED TRUST FREDDIE MAC MULTICLASS CERTIFICATES SERIES 3305 TRUST, NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, BANK OF AMERICA, NA, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM "MERS", AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS FILED BY DEFENDANTS (1)GREENPOINT MORTGAGE; (2) NATIONSTAR, FREDDIE MAC, AND MERS; AND (3) BANK OF AMERICA AND MERRILL LYNCH

          Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, U.S. District Court Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on the three separate Motions to Dismiss filed, respectively, by Defendants (1) Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (“Greenpoint”) (Dkt No. 10); (2) Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, as Trustee for Freddie Mac Seasoned Credit Risk Transfer Trust, Series 2017-2 (“Freddie Mac”), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) (Dkt. No. 24); and (3) Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (“Merrill Lynch”) (Dkt. No. 43). For the following reasons, the Court grants all three motions and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.

         II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]

         On March 21, 2007, Plaintiff executed a promissory note (“Note”) for $360, 000, in consideration for a loan (the “Loan”) from Greenpoint, for the purchase of real property located at 21811 45th Place S., in Kent, Washington (the “Property”). Compl., ¶ 3; see also Ex A to Request for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 43-1. Plaintiff also executed at that time a Deed of Trust (“Deed of Trust”) securing the Note and encumbering the Property. Id., ¶ 31; See also Ex. A to Declaration of Hunter Abell (“Abell Decl.”). MERS was named as beneficiary and nominee for Greenpoint, its successors and assigns. Id.

         In November 2008, MERS assigned its interest in the Deed of Trust to Greenpoint, which in May 2011, assigned its interest in the Deed of Trust to BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP (“BAC”). Exs. B & C to Declaration of Christopher Varallo (“Varallo Decl.”).

         In November 2012, Plaintiff executed a “Home Affordable Modification Agreement, ” representing that he was in default or that default was imminent. Compl. ¶ 41; Varallo Decl., Ex. D. That agreement, with Nationstar as Lender, modified the terms of the original Loan, setting forth a new principal balance of $453, 069. Id.

         In December 2018, Bank of America, successor to BAC, assigned its interest in the Deed of Trust to Freddie Mac. Id., Ex. E. On January 8, 2019, Freddie Mac authorized a Notice of Default, indicating that Plaintiff had ceased making payments on the Loan in July 2018. Id., Ex. G. The Notice of Trustee's Sale indicated that as of February 2019 Plaintiff was $17, 068.12 in arrears on the loan, with a principal of $352, 307.19 remaining. Id., Ex. I at 2.

         On or about February 13, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant lawsuit in King County Superior Court, which Defendants removed to this Court based on diversity of the parties. Dkt. No. 1. On June 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), seeking an injunction of the foreclosure sale of the Property, scheduled to take place in June 2019. The Court granted that motion pending resolution of the instant motions.

         On April 18, 2019, Greenpoint filed a motion to dismiss. On May 17, 2019, Nationstar, Freddie Mac and MERS filed a motion to dismiss. And on July 3, 2019, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch filed a motion to dismiss. Taken together, these three motions seek dismissal of all claims against all named Defendants, with prejudice and without leave to amend.

         Plaintiff failed to file a response to either of the first two motions to dismiss by the respective deadlines. Instead, on June 21, 2019-approximately six weeks after his first response was due, and two weeks after the second was due-Plaintiff filed a motion to extend, requesting until July 1, 2019 to respond to the motions. Dkt No. 39. Plaintiff's motion to extend the deadlines was untimely and set forth no justification for having missed the deadlines to respond to the motions to dismiss.[2]

         On July 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss” (“Response”). Dkt. No. 44. It is not clear from the response which of the three motions to dismiss Plaintiff is responding to, though the Court presumes it is a response to all three. In his Response, Plaintiff essentially concedes that his Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted; seeks leave to amend his Complaint by August 2, 2019; and raises an argument concerning a purported UCC-1 filing requirement, discussed further below. Defendants filed three separate replies. Dkt. Nos. 45, 46, 47.

         Having reviewed the Complaint, the three Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiff's Response, and the Defendants' Replies to that Response, and all exhibits filed ...


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.