United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS
J. Bryan United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Quality Loan
Service Corporation of Washington's (“Quality
Loan”) Request for Judicial Notice and Motion to
Dismiss. Dkt. 39. The Court has considered the motion and the
remainder of the record herein.
filed in Kitsap County, Washington Superior Court, this case
arises from a mortgage and deed of trust on property commonly
known as 11700 Carriage Place SE, Olalla, Washington. Dkt.
1-3. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. On December 11,
2019, Defendant Quality Loan filed the instant motion to
dismiss; it is noted for 3 January 2020. Dkt. 39. In accord
with Local Rule W.D. Wash 7(d)(3), the Plaintiff's
response, if any, is due by Monday 29 December 2019.
December 2019, the Plaintiff contacted the Clerk of the
Court's office, ex parte. She indicated that she
has been in the hospital with “mini-strokes” and
is unable to meet the 29 December 2019 deadline. She asserted
that it was impossible for her to file anything. The
Plaintiff asked for an extension of time to file her
response. The Clerk of the Court informed the Plaintiff that
she could not make motions over the telephone and that if she
wished to move for an extension, she could file a motion on
Plaintiff should not attempt to move for extensions of time
over the phone. Further, as a pro se Plaintiff, the
Plaintiff should be issued a warning regarding the motion to
to Pro Se Plaintiff Regarding Motion to Dismiss.
is reminded that “[p]ro se litigants must follow the
same rules of procedure that govern other litigants, ”
Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379,
381 (9th Cir. 1997), including the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Civil Rules of the Western District
of Washington (“Local Rules”). Plaintiff is
further reminded that although pro se pleadings are held to a
“less stringent standard that formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers, ” they still must meet the requirements of
the rules. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), a party may assert the following
defenses in a motion to dismiss: “(1) lack of subject
matter jurisdiction; (2) lack of personal jurisdiction; (3)
improper venue; (4) insufficient process; (5) insufficient
service of process; (6) failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; and (7) failure to join a party under
is notified that Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss may
be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or
the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable
legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
1990). Material allegations are taken as admitted and the
complaint is construed in the plaintiff's favor.
Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295 (9th
Cir. 1983). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the
grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65
(2007)(internal citations omitted). “Factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level, on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact).” Id. at 1965. Plaintiffs must allege
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974.
is notified that if the motion to dismiss is granted, her
claims may be dismissed. Plaintiff's response, if any, is
due on 6 January 2020 in accord with Local
Rule W.D. Wash. 7(d)(3). The motion (Dkt. 39) should be
renoted to 10 January 2020.
IS SO ORDERED.
Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all counsel
of record and to any party appearing pro se at ...