Quiggle et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, No. 3:2010cv05221 - Document 31 (W.D. Wash. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER granting 23 Defendant Northwest Trustee Service's Motion to Dismiss. This matter is now DISMISSED with prejudice. All other defendants have been dismissed per 18 . The Clerk will prepare a Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

Download PDF

Quiggle et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al Doc. 31 THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 Michael C. Quiggle; Roberta L. Quiggle, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 Wells Fargo Bank, NA; Deutsche Bank; Soundview Home Loan Trust; Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.; and MERS 13 Defendants, 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-10-5221-RBL ORDER GRANTING NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICE’S MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. #23] 16 17 This matter is before the Court on the defendant Northwest Trustee Services, Inc’s 18 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). [Dkt. #23] This Motion follows the Court’s prior 19 dismissal of other defendants [Dkt. #18]. 20 Plaintiffs apparently lost their home to a foreclosure in which each Defendant played 21 22 some role. On March 30, 2010, Plaintiffs filed this action. They allege that Defendant Northwest 23 engaged in conspiracy when they proceeded with the foreclosure even though they were “in 24 receipt of notice of the fraud, conversion, theft, deceptive trade practices, consume fraud, and 25 predatory lending tactics, violations of BASEL III.” See Pltf’s Compl., Dkt. #1, at 10. They also 26 allege Defendant Northwest “holds no lawfully obtained powers to act as foreclosing agent.” 3 Dockets.Justia.com Beyond this, the Plaintiffs’ claims against Northwest are not clear. Northwest argues that 1 2 3 the Plaintiffs’ allegations do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). 4 Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal 5 6 theory or absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. 7 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff’s complaint must allege 8 facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 9 1949 (2009). A claim has “facial plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual 10 11 content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the Court must accept as true the Complaint’s well-pled facts, 12 13 conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an otherwise proper 14 [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion. Vasquez v. L. A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell 15 v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to 16 provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, 17 and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations 18 must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 19 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and footnote omitted). This requires a plaintiff to plead 20 21 22 “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly). . In their response to Northwest’s Motion, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Fraud on the Court 23 24 and Motion to Strike Northwest’s Motion [Dkt. #25]. This filing mirrors the Response the 25 Plaintiffs filed to the prior Motion [Dkt. #16.] It does not address any of Northwest’s arguments, 26 3 1 and does not remotely meet the Plaintiffs’ burden under Rule 12(b)(6), even taking into account 2 that they are pro se. 3 Plaintiffs’ have not and cannot establish the fraud or the conspiracy they allege in 4 conclusory fashion. They have not, and cannot, state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 5 Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint is 6 7 GRANTED and the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall 8 enter a final judgment reflecting this dismissal of this Defendant as well as the Defendants 9 dismissed in the Court’s prior Order [Dkt. #18]. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13 DATED this 18th day of March, 2011 A 14 15 RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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.