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.

Weidman v. Carrington Mortgage Services

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

August 20, 2019

BEAU A. WEIDMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON fka THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR REGISTERED HOLDERS OF CWABS, INC. ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-23; AZTEC FORECLOSURE CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants.

          ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND FURTHER ORDERS TO PLAINTIFF

          ROBERT J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Carrington Mortgage Services (“Carrington”) and The Bank of New York Mellon FKA The Bank of New York as Trustee for Registered Holders of CWABS, Inc. Asset Backed Certificates Series 2006-23's (“Bank of New York”) Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 14. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remainder of the record herein.

         On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed this case pro se, asserting violations of federal law (including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et. seq. (“RESPA”)) and state law in connection with a mortgage on real property commonly known as 3950 Birch Street, Washougal, Washington. Dkt. 1. Defendants Carrington and Bank of New York's motion to dismiss was granted and Plaintiff's “Lack of Standing/Wrongful Foreclosure” claim, FDCPA claim, and RESPA claim, were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff was granted leave, if he wished, to file an amended complaint to plead a Deed of Trust Act, RCW 61.24 et. seq. (“DTA”) claim only against the Bank of New York and Carrington. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting a DTA claim against them on June 14, 3019. Dkt. 13.

         Defendants Carrington and Bank of New York now move for dismissal of the DTA claim asserted against them pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6). Dkt. 14. For the reasons provided below, the motion (Dkt. 14) should be granted and the claims asserted against Defendants Carrington and Bank of New York should be dismissed. Further, the Plaintiff should be ordered to show cause why this Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims in the case. If he argues that the Court should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, he should also be ordered to file proof of service regarding Defendant Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington (“Aztec”).

         I. FACTS, PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION OF OPINION

         In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as is the case here, the court is generally limited to review of “the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, ” and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. In re Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, 697 F.3d 869, 876 (9th Cir. 2012). In considering this motion, the moving Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of publicly recorded documents, documents from the Plaintiff's bankruptcy case, and documents referenced in the Plaintiff's Complaint. “A court may take judicial notice of matters of public record without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, as long as the facts noticed are not subject to reasonable dispute.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The Court should grant the Defendants' request and take judicial notice of the documents found at Dkt. 14-2. The Court has already taken judicial notice of the documents found at Dkt. 8-1. The following facts that are taken from the public record and from documents referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint are filed in this case at “Dkt. 8-1” and “Dkt. 14-2” are so referred to in this order. Facts from the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are cited as “Dkt. 13.”

         Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is difficult to follow. As it relates to the current motion, Plaintiff alleges in the Amended Complaint that on July 26, 2006, he obtained a loan on the subject property from Golf Savings Bank, A Washington Stock Bank (“Golf”) by executing a Note secured by a Deed of Trust. Dkt. 13, at 6-7. The Note provides that if the Plaintiff did “not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on the date it [was] due, [he] would be in default.” Dkt. 8-1, at 7. In the Deed of Trust, which was recorded with the Clark County Auditor on August 4, 2006, the Plaintiff agreed that the “Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with [the Deed of Trust]) [could] be sold one or more times without prior notice to [the Plaintiff].” Dkt. 8-1, at 13-31.

         On November 11, 2011, an Assignment of Deed of Trust, assigning all interest in the Note and Deed of Trust to The Bank of New York, was recorded with the Clark County Auditor. Dkt. 8-1, at 34-35. On November 13, 2011, an Appointment of Successor Trustee, in which the Bank of New York (through its attorney in fact) appointed Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“Northwest Trustee”) as successor trustee under the deed of trust, was recorded with the Clark County Auditor. Dkt. 8-1, at 37.

         On January 12, 2016, Northwest Trustee recorded, with the Clark County Auditor, a Notice of Trustee's Sale regarding the subject property. Dkt. 8-1, at 39-43. The sale was scheduled for May 13, 2016. Id.

         The day before the sale, on May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed for relief under Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In re Weidman, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington case number 16-42048-PBS; filed in this case at Dkt. 8-1, at 45. On June 1, 2016 the Plaintiff filed his proposed plan with the bankruptcy court, noting that he had “listed his residence for sale” and that the sale was “expected to be a short sale, and if [he could not] obtain a short sale by August 15, 2016, [he would] amend his plan to surrender the property.” Id., Dkt. 16; filed in this case at Dkt. 8-1, at 65. The bankruptcy was dismissed on September 2, 2016. Id., Dkt. 32; filed in this case at Dkt. 8-1, at 45-51.

         On August 29, 2018, an Appointment of Successor Trustee was recorded with the Clark County Auditor's office, in which the Bank of New York appointed Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington (“Aztec”) successor trustee on the Deed of Trust. Dkt. 8-1, at 71-74. The Appointment was executed by the Bank of New York via its attorney in fact, Carrington. Id. Aztec recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale with the Clark County Auditor on October 31, 2018, giving notice of the trustee's sale on March 8, 2019. Dkt. 8-1, at 76-81. Carrington is noted to be the loan's servicer on the Notice of Trustee's Sale. Dkt. 8-1, at 76. Aztec executed a Trustee's Deed granting the property to the Bank of New York in exchange for payment of $692, 750.00 for the property. Dkt. 8-1, at 83-86. The Trustee's Deed was recorded with the Clark County Auditor on March 20, 2019. Id.

         On April 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this case. Dkt. 1. In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that “Defendant Aztec allegedly sold the Subject Property to Defendant Carrington at the Trustee Sale;” the Plaintiff maintains that this “is not true.” Dkt. 13, at 7. The Plaintiff points to a letter from Aztec the Plaintiff received that states, “The property located at 3950 Birch Street, Washougal, WA 98671 was purchased at a trustee's sale by Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC on March 8, 2019.” Dkt. 13, at 13. The Plaintiff asserts that the property went back to the Bank of New York, and so the sale must be voided. Dkt. 13, at 7. His Amended Complaint references Washington's DTA. Dkt. 13.

         The Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs. Dkt. 13, at 8. He further seeks an order declaring that the foreclosure sale was “unlawful and void.” Id.

         While not relevant to this motion, the Plaintiff names Aztec as a Defendant in the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 13. Aztec is alleged to be a Washington business entity. Dkt. 13. Aztec has not appeared in the case and there is no evidence that it ...


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.