United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss brought
by Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells
Fargo”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. (“MERS”). Dkt. #6. Plaintiff Khai Luong has
failed to oppose this Motion. Pursuant to local rule, the
Court interprets this failure as an admission that the Motion
has merit. See LCR 7(b)(2). For the reasons stated
below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion and dismisses
all of Plaintiff's claims with leave to amend.
making a 12(b)(6) assessment, the court accepts all facts
alleged in the complaint as true, and makes all inferences in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Baker
v. Riverside County Office of Educ., 584 F.3d 821, 824
(9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). However, the
court is not required to accept as true a “legal
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 678. This
requirement is met when the plaintiff “pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. The complaint need not include
detailed allegations, but it must have “more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Absent facial
plausibility, a plaintiff's claims must be dismissed.
Id. at 570.
case was removed from King County Superior Court on November
25, 2019. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff's state court Complaint
contains no facts or causes of action; it simply cites to
cases in other jurisdictions dealing with foreclosures.
See Dkt. #1-4. Attachments to Plaintiff's
Complaint include certain facts and argument. As it stands,
the Complaint clearly fails to satisfy Rule 8(a)'s
requirement that a pleading contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” This must be within the Complaint itself.
Under the above legal standards, dismissal of Plaintiff's
claims is therefore warranted.
complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim,
“leave to amend should be granted unless the court
determines that the allegation of other facts consistent with
the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the
deficiency.” Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well
Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
parties have submitted additional documents that shed light
on what Plaintiff is claiming. Plaintiff's attachments
indicate that he is claiming that Defendants are illegally
foreclosing on his property and engaging in mortgage fraud,
and that Defendants must “furnish the original wet ink
promissory note.” Dkt. #1-1 at 3.
have filed a request for judicial notice. Dkt. #7. Defendants
argue that the Court can take judicial notice of
“Exhibits 2, 4, and 6-8 [because] they are true and
correct copies of official records of the King County
Recorder's Office, whose authenticity is capable of
accurate and ready determination.” Id. at 3
(citing Fed.R.Evid. 201(b); Castillo-Villagra v.
INS, 972 F.2d 1017, 1026 (9th Cir. 1992)). Defendants
also ask to take judicial notice of documents referred to in
the complaint and incorporated by reference, see Branch
v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453-54 (9th Cir. 1994), as well
as a death certificate issued by the State of Washington.
Plaintiff has not opposed judicial notice on any of these
documents. The Court agrees it can consider them.
all these documents and the arguments by Defendants, the
Court finds that Plaintiff should be granted one final
opportunity to amend his claims. Defendants maintain that
Plaintiff's claims cannot be brought against them without
the participation of other parties, that his claims lack
sufficient supporting facts, and that Plaintiff has waived
certain claims by failing to file them before the
foreclosure, but that other claims may be filed after the
foreclosure. See Dkt. #6. There is simply too much
uncertainty about exactly what Plaintiff is pleading at this
point to say that Plaintiff could not amend his pleadings to
bring claims that could survive immediate dismissal. Leave to
amend will therefore be granted.
reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the
record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. #6, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED.
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint
curing the above-mentioned deficiencies no later than
thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. This
Amended Complaint will replace the existing Complaint, and it
must include specific causes of action and facts to support
them. The Court will not consider facts contained outside the