Nguyen v. Recontrust Company, N.A.
3:11-cv-05642
W.D. Wash.Jan 6, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Van Nguyen, pro se, filed a default-related action in the Western District of Washington challenging a non-judicial foreclosure.
- Defendants include lenders and servicers involved in the loan and foreclosure process.
- Nguyen alleged the loan was securitized, ownership of Note/Deed of Trust was unclear, and the documents were separated, among other industry-organization claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss claims Nos. 1–9 under Rule 12(b)(6) as legally insufficient, seeking dismissal with prejudice and no leave to amend.
- Nguyen did not respond to the motion.
- The court applied Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standards and treated Nguyen’s failure to respond as an admission that the motion is meritorious, then granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do claims 1–9 state plausible legal claims? | Nguyen contends claims are legally viable against the defendants. | Defendants argue the claims are legally insufficient and fail the plausibility standard. | No; claims are dismissed for failure to plead plausibly. |
| Should dismissal be with prejudice and without leave to amend? | Nguyen contends amendment should be allowed if viable theories exist. | Amendment would be futile given the defects. | Yes; dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend. |
| May the court treat Nguyen's failure to respond as admission on the merits? | Nguyen did not respond, no position stated. | Under Local Rule 7(b)(2), failure to file response may be treated as admission of merit. | Yes; failure to respond is treated as admission, supporting dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Cook, Perkiss & Liehe v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1990) (leave to amend when underlying facts could cure pleading)
- Albrecht v. Lund, 845 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1988) (when to deny leave to amend where facts are not in dispute)
- Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2007) (conclusory allegations insufficient to state a claim)
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (pleading requirements and inference standards)