Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Rinegard-Guirma v. All Persons Unknown of The Gsamp Trust 2006 HE5 Trust

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

February 16, 2018



          MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge

         This matter comes before me on Defendant U.S. Bank's Motion to Dismiss [32] and Request for Judicial Notice [33]. For the reasons below, I GRANT U.S. Bank's Motions.


         In 2011, U.S. Bank, as successor in interest and Trustee of the GSAMP Trust, filed a state court foreclosure action against Ms. Rinegard-Guirma, based on her failure to make payments on a Promissory Note. Request for Judicial Notice [33], Exh. 7. U.S. Bank prevailed in 2013 and received a general judgment of foreclosure against a property located at 5731 NE 10th Avenue in Portland from the state court. Request for Judicial Notice [33], Exh. 7.

         Since 2010, Ms. Rinegard-Guirma has filed numerous lawsuits related to the foreclosure. These lawsuits eventually led this Court to issue a pre-file review order. In February 2017, she attempted to file a suit against “All Persons unknown of the GSAMP Trust 2006 HES Trust” (No. 17-075) and sought modification of the pre-file review order that was in place at the time. I held a hearing on February 28, 2017, in which I lifted the pre-file review order but warned Ms. Rinegard-Guirma that I would issue a new pre-file review order if her latest complaint was dismissed for the same reasons that her previous complaints were dismissed. Civ. No. 17-075 [7]. She filed the Complaint in this case on March 1 [1]. I issued a new Pre-File Review Order on March 8 but did not dismiss her Complaint at that time. Dkt. 17-075 [9]. I then granted leave for Ms. Rinegard-Guirma to file a First, and then a Second, Amended Complaint; the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is the operative complaint in this case.

         Ms. Rinegard-Guirma alleges three claims for relief in the SAC [19]: (1) Claim One alleges that the Oregon precedent that establishes that a deed of trust always follows the note it secures is preempted by federal law; (2) Claim Two alleges this precedent violates her due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) Claim Three alleges that her Deed of Trust for her original loan is an unenforceable contract and a legal nullity under U.S. Supreme Court case law. SAC [19] at 3-5.

         U.S. Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss [32] and a Request for Judicial Notice [33].[1] U.S. Bank moves to dismiss Ms. Rinegard-Guirma's claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), based on res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Po. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Motion [32] at 2. Ms. Rinegard-Guirma filed two responses, in which she argued that U.S. Bank is not the proper defendant in this case and opposed U.S. Bank's Motion. [42, 45].


         When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court must “accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). A court need not accept legal conclusions as true because “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A pleading that offers only “labels and conclusions” or “‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement'” will not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). While a plaintiff does not need to make detailed factual allegations at the pleading stage, the allegations must be sufficiently specific to give the defendant “fair notice” of the claim and the grounds on which it rests. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

         Rule 15 provides that a court should freely give leave to amend a complaint “when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). As such, when a court dismisses a complaint 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.'” DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986)). If amendment would be futile, the court need not grant leave to amend. Id. “Leave to amend may also be denied for repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendment.” Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008).


         I. Whether U.S. Bank is a Proper Defendant

         As a preliminary matter, Ms. Rinegard-Guirma argues that U.S. Bank is not “All Persons unknown of the GSAMP Trust 2006 HES Trust, ” based on a document that appears to come from a U.S. Bank website stating that “U.S. Bank as Trustee . . .does not manage or maintain properties in foreclosure.” Response [42] at 4; id. at Ex. 1. U.S. Bank entered this case as the Defendant, because it is the Trustee of the GSAMP Trust. Under Oregon law, a Trustee can address claims against the trust and take other actions on behalf of a trust. O.R.S. § 130.725(14). And the document Ms. Rinegard-Guirma attaches to her pleadings is unauthenticated and does not speak to the issue at hand, which is whether U.S. Bank is the Trustee of the GSAMP Trust. I agree with U.S. Bank and conclude it is a proper defendant here.

         II. The Rooker-F ...

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.