United States District Court, D. Oregon
DWAYNE J. DENNIS and HAZEL R.D. DENNIS, Plaintiffs,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, Defendants.
MICHAEL H. SIMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
lawsuit, Plaintiffs Dwayne and Hazel Dennis, representing
themselves, seek to enjoin the foreclosure of their home and
obtain money damages. Their lawsuit relates to a line of
credit secured by their home that Plaintiffs obtained in 2005
from Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells
Fargo”). Both Wells Fargo and Defendant Quality Loan
Service Corporation of Washington (“Quality
Loan”) have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, as
alleged in the Amended Complaint.
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted
only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the
claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual
allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief.
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622
F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the
sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the
court must accept as true all well-pleaded material facts
alleged in the complaint and construe them in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v.
Hewlett- Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th
Cir. 2012); Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ.
Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). To be
entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in a
complaint “may not simply recite the elements of a
cause of action, but must contain sufficient allegations of
underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the
opposing party to defend itself effectively.” Starr
v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). All
reasonable inferences from the factual allegations must be
drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Newcal Indus. v. Ikon
Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038, 1043 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2008). The court need not, however, credit the
plaintiff's legal conclusions that are couched as factual
allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009). A complaint must contain sufficient factual
allegations to “plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing
party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and
continued litigation.” Starr, 652 F.3d at
parties have submitted numerous exhibits to the Court, often
at the Court's invitation, relating to the underlying
events. Without objection by the parties, the Court takes
judicial notice of all the loan-related documents submitted
by the parties.
contend that they do not have a loan with Wells Fargo and
that Wells Fargo credited their checking account with $204,
000 “without [their] authorization, permission or
signature.” ECF 30. But the records indicate that on or
about October 4, 2005, Plaintiffs signed an agreement in
favor of Wells Fargo for a credit line of $204.000.00 (the
“Loan”). ECF 55, Ex. 1. To secure repayment of
the Loan, Plaintiffs signed a Deed of Trust, which granted a
security interest in Plaintiffs' home to Wells Fargo
Financial National Bank as Trustee and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
as “Beneficiary/Lender.” ECF 55, Ex. 2. The Deed
of Trust indicates that is secures a maximum debt obligation
of $204, 000.00 and granted the “power of sale”
to the trustee for the benefit of Wells Fargo in the event
Plaintiffs defaulted on their obligation to repay the Loan.
ECF 55, Ex. 3. In 2005, Plaintiffs received $204, 000 from
Well Fargo pursuant to Plaintiffs' line of credit. In
2015, Plaintiffs defaulted on their payments due under the
Loan. In March 2018, Wells Fargo sent Plaintiffs a notice of
default, informing them that they now owed a total amount of
$206, 837.84, consisting of principal borrowed plus interest
less payments made. ECF 55, Ex. 4. Because Plaintiffs signed
the documents relating to the Loan, received the proceeds of
the Loan, and failed to make all payments when due,
Plaintiffs' claims alleged in the Amended Complaint lack
facial plausibility and are thus subject to dismissal.
their response to Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss,
Plaintiffs recite, among other things, the several causes of
action that appear in the caption of their Amended Complaint.
As stated above, however, the Ninth Circuit has explained
that to be entitled to a presumption of truth, allegations in
a complaint “may not simply recite the elements of a
cause of action, ” Starr, 652 F.3d at 1216.
The Court recognizes that it is often difficult for
individuals untrained in the law to represent themselves in a
federal court lawsuit. For that reason, the Court provides
certain allowances to parties who represent themselves. But
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is insufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief.
motions to dismiss (ECF 54 and ECF 56) are GRANTED.
Plaintiffs may have 28 days from the date of this Order to
file a second amended complaint, if they believe they can
cure the deficiencies identified in this Order. If Plaintiffs
do not timely file a sufficient second amended complaint,
this action will be dismissed.