Adams v. Schneider et al, No. 2:2019cv00103 - Document 29 (E.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13 ) is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 17 ) is DENIED as moot. All pending motions are DENIED as moot, all deadlines, hearings and trial are VACATED. The file is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adams v. Schneider et al Doc. 29 Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.261 Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 AMANDA ADAMS, an individual, NO. 2:19-CV-0103-TOR Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 12 13 v. STEPHEN SCHNEIDER, an individual and STEPHEN SCHNEIDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.S., a Washington corporation, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants. 14 15 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 16 (ECF No. 13) and Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 17). These 17 matters were heard with oral argument on September 9, 2020. Kirk D. Miller 18 appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Marcus E. Johnson and Michael E. Ramsden 19 appeared on behalf of Defendants. The Court has reviewed the record and files 20 herein and considered the parties’ oral arguments, and is fully informed. For the ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.262 Page 2 of 10 1 reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 2 13) is GRANTED and Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 17) is 3 DENIED as moot. 4 BACKGROUND 5 This case arises out of Defendants’ action for unlawful detainer against 6 Plaintiff in Spokane County Superior Court. See ECF No. 1. Defendants seek 7 summary judgment on the grounds that Defendants’ conduct does not implicate the 8 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). ECF No. 13. Defendants also 9 request judicial notice of the “entire record” related to the underlying state court 10 proceedings, ECF No. 17, without providing a copy of the entire record. The 11 parties have attached certain documents to their pleadings in support of their 12 arguments, which have not been objected to by the opposing party. ECF Nos. 16- 13 1, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, 20-1, 20-2, 20-3, 20-4. Except where noted, the following 14 facts are not in dispute. 15 Plaintiff resided in a home on East Mission Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 16 with her significant other, Roy Wiggin. ECF No. 14 at 1-2, ¶ 1. The home was 17 owned by Richard Ingram. Id. Plaintiff resided at the home with the permission of 18 the owner; she did not have a lease, nor did she pay rent. ECF No. 14 at 2, ¶ 2. 19 After Richard Ingram passed away, Defendants were retained by the estate’s 20 personal representative, Joel Ingram, to recover possession of the residence. ECF ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 2 Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.263 Page 3 of 10 1 No. 14 at 2, ¶ 3. Plaintiff disputes that Defendants were retained to only recover 2 possession of the residence. ECF No. 21 at 2, ¶ 1. 3 On May 3, 2018, Plaintiff was served with a Demand for Immediate 4 Possession, requiring her to vacate the residence. ECF No. 14 at 2, ¶ 4. The 5 parties dispute whether Defendants merely sought possession or whether this 6 demand also sought an amount of monies or back rent. ECF No. 14 at 2, ¶ 5; ECF 7 No. 21 at 2, ¶ 2. That same day, Plaintiff was also served with a 20-Day Notice to 8 Terminate Tenancy. ECF No. 14 at 2, ¶ 5. This notice required that she surrender 9 possession of the residence; it did not contain a demand for any amount of monies 10 11 or back rent. Id. On May 15, 2018, Defendants filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer 12 against Plaintiff and Mr. Wiggin in Spokane County Superior Court. ECF No. 14 13 at 3, ¶ 7. The complaint sought the following relief: (1) termination of tenancy; (2) 14 damages for unlawful detainer with costs of enforcement of Writ of Restitution; (3) 15 reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and (4) further relief as the Superior Court 16 deemed just and equitable. ECF No. 14 at 3, ¶ 9. At the time the complaint was 17 filed, Plaintiff did not owe a debt to Mr. Robert Ingram’s estate because she 18 resided at the residence rent free. ECF No. 14 at 3, ¶ 8. 19 Plaintiff then met with Defendants to execute an Agreed Order for Writ of 20 Restitution and Limited Dissemination which terminated Plaintiff’s tenancy and ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 3 Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.264 Page 4 of 10 1 restored possession to Defendants’ client, Mr. Joel Ingram. ECF No. 13 at 3, ¶ 11. 2 Plaintiff disputes that this order was “Agreed” as Plaintiff signed both on behalf of 3 herself and her absent partner, Mr. Wiggin, without his consent. ECF No. 21 at 2, 4 ¶ 4. 5 On June 14, 2018, the Superior Court issued a Writ of Restitution to 6 terminate Plaintiff’s tenancy and restore possession to Defendants’ client, Mr. 7 Ingram. ECF No. 14 at 4, ¶ 12. On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff’s partner, Mr. Wiggin, 8 filed a motion to vacate judgment and stay enforcement of the court’s writ of 9 restitution. ECF No. 14 at 4, ¶ 13. That same day, the Superior Court heard Mr. 10 Wiggin’s motion. ECF No. 14 at 4, ¶ 14. Plaintiff did not participate or join in the 11 motion or hearing. ECF No. 14 at 4, ¶¶ 13-14. 12 At a later point, the Superior Court dismissed the Unlawful Detainer action, 13 finding there was no subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 14 at 4, ¶ 15; ECF No. 14 20-3. Due to the dismissal, adjudication on the merits and damages were not 15 reached. ECF No. 14 at 4, ¶ 16. Plaintiff disputes the lack of adjudication to the 16 extent that she alleges the Superior Court found Plaintiff and Mr. Wiggin to be in 17 rightful possession of the residence. ECF No. 21 at 2, ¶ 6. Such assertion is not 18 supported by the state court order. ECF No. 20-3. 19 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 4 Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.265 Page 5 of 10 1 The parties dispute whether Defendants ever sought recovery of rent from 2 Plaintiff during these proceedings. ECF No. 14 at 5, ¶ 17; ECF No. 21 at 2, ¶ 7; 3 ECF No. 23 at 2, ¶ 5. 4 DISCUSSION 5 A. Summary Judgment 6 The Court may grant summary judgment in favor of a moving party who 7 demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the 8 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In ruling 9 on a motion for summary judgment, the court must only consider admissible 10 evidence. Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). The 11 party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the 12 absence of any genuine issues of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 13 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to identify 14 specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Anderson v. 15 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla 16 of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be 17 evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id. at 252. 18 For purposes of summary judgment, a fact is “material” if it might affect the 19 outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. at 248. Further, a dispute is 20 “genuine” only where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find in ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 5 Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.266 Page 6 of 10 1 favor of the non-moving party. Id. The Court views the facts, and all rational 2 inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. 3 Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). Summary judgment will thus be granted 4 “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of 5 an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the 6 burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. In ruling on a summary 7 judgment motion, a court must construe the facts, as well as all rational inferences 8 therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 9 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). 10 B. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 11 The FDCPA was created to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by 12 debt collectors.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Relevant here, a debt collector may not use 13 false or misleading representations or unfair practices in collecting or attempting to 14 collect a debt. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e-f. “As a ‘broad remedial statute,’ the FDCPA 15 must be liberally construed in favor of the consumer to effectuate this goal of 16 eliminating abuse.” Hernandez v. Williams, Zinman, & Parham PC, 829 F.3d 17 1068, 1978-79 (9th Cir. 2016). 18 As a threshold matter, there must be a “debt,” defined in the statute as “any 19 obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a 20 transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 6 Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.267 Page 7 of 10 1 subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, 2 whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.” 15 U.S.C. 3 § 1692a(5) (emphasis added). “[W]hether the undisputed facts alleged in the 4 complaint establish the existence of debt within the meaning of § 1692a(5) is a 5 question of law.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). 6 Defendants argue that the FDCPA is not implicated on the grounds that: (1) 7 “there was no transaction between [Plaintiff] and Defendants’ clients” and (2) 8 “Defendants never attempted to collect a debt from Plaintiff.” ECF No. 13 at 2. 9 10 1. No underlying “transaction” For purposes of the statute, the “debt” must arise out of a transaction that 11 involves “some kind of business dealing or other consensual obligation.” Fleming 12 v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925–26 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Turner, 362 F.3d at 13 1227). Tort judgments and criminal acts, of course, are excluded from the 14 umbrella of “consensual obligation.” See Fleming, 581 F.3d at 926; Turner, 362 15 F.3d at 1228. 16 Transactions in the landlord-tenant context consistently involve a lease 17 agreement. See Reichert v. Nat'l Credit Sys., Inc., 531 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 18 2008); Romea v. Heiberger & Assocs., 163 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1998). 19 20 The Second Circuit provided further insight into the transaction required in the landlord-tenant eviction process. In Romea, the court found that while the ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 7 Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.268 Page 8 of 10 1 FDCPA does not require a transaction based on “an extant contractual 2 arrangement,” the lease agreement nevertheless formed the basis for the transaction 3 because it did not terminate upon the tenant’s failure to pay rent. 163 F.3d at 116. 4 Such a lease contrasts with examples of “the unauthorized use of cable television 5 services or the nonpayment of taxes” where “no contractual relationship exists or 6 indeed ever existed.” Id. 7 Here, the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff was living at the residence rent 8 free and without a lease. ECF No. 14 at 2, ¶ 2; ECF No. 14 at 3, ¶ 8. Defendants 9 argue that Plaintiff did not dispute the lack of transaction between the parties. ECF 10 No. 22 at 3. Plaintiff indirectly disputes this by making two arguments. First, 11 Plaintiff cites to Lian v. Stalick, 106 Wash. App. 811, 823, 830 (2001) to assert that 12 a written lease is not required to find a landlord-tenant relationship, which would 13 trigger various obligations relating to the tenancy. ECF No. 19 at 7. Second, 14 Plaintiff argues that Defendants recognized the landlord-tenant relationship by 15 “taking advantage of the RLTA statutes” and “Unlawful Detainer eviction 16 process.” ECF No. 19 at 12. 17 Plaintiff’s arguments are unavailing. Plaintiff fails to point to any 18 contractual relationship between the parties. Even where a written lease is not 19 required to establish a landlord-tenant relationship, there is no evidence of any oral 20 contract to pay rent. Plaintiff’s stay was merely gratuitous as she did not pay rent. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 8 Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.269 Page 9 of 10 1 Thus, there was no “transaction” establishing a debt to bring Plaintiff’s claims 2 within the ambit of the FDCPA. 3 2. The alleged debt 4 While Defendants assert that they merely sought possession of the residence, 5 Plaintiff asserts that Defendants also sought to collect a debt in the form of a 6 money judgment and attorney’s fees through judicial proceedings. ECF No. 19 at 7 9-10. Because the Court finds that there was no “transaction” upon which debt 8 collection could occur, the Court rejects this argument. Seeking costs and fees for 9 bringing a judicial action to obtain possession does not establish a consumer debt 10 for purposes of the FDCPA. 11 Here, the filing of an unlawful detainer action, a form of ejectment, sought 12 possession of the property, not the collection of a prior debt. Unlawful detainer 13 actions are not debt collection activities. Von Brincken v. GMAC Mortg. 2013 WL 14 322909 at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (cases cited therein); Keys v. Pearson Affiliated, 15 Inc., 2013 WL 12205581 at *6 (C.D Cal. 2013); Brown v. Deutsche Bank Nat. 16 Trust Co., 2015 WL 1416582 at *4 (S.D. Cal. 2015); Lam v. Penny Mac, 2019 WL 17 6045166 at *6 (E.D. Cal. 2019) (simple foreclosure of property is not collection of 18 debt). 19 // 20 // ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 9 Case 2:19-cv-00103-TOR ECF No. 29 filed 09/09/20 PageID.270 Page 10 of 10 1 C. Judicial Notice 2 Defendants filed a Request for Judicial Notice regarding the public records 3 in the underlying state proceeding. ECF No. 17 at 2. Federal courts may take 4 judicial notice of state court orders and proceedings related to the matters at issue. 5 Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). 6 The request is unopposed. However, as the Court has granted Defendants’ Motion 7 for Summary Judgment, Defendants’ request is moot. 8 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is 10 GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2. Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 17) is DENIED as moot. 3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot, all deadlines, hearings and trial are VACATED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and Judgment accordingly, furnish copies to counsel, and CLOSE the file. DATED September 9, 2020. 18 19 THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge 20 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ~ 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
