Sahm v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc
2:22-cv-00165
W.D. Wash.Jun 2, 2022Background
- In 2004 Sahm executed a promissory note and deed of trust on the subject property; Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) initiated nonjudicial foreclosure after an alleged 2019 default.
- Sahm previously sued numerous defendants in 2020 over the foreclosure; that complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- A trustee’s sale in January 2022 conveyed the property to a third party; the buyer obtained a writ of restitution in a King County unlawful detainer action.
- Sahm filed the present pro se complaint alleging robosigned notes and violations of multiple federal statutes, seeking removal of liens, a permanent stay, prosecution for forgery, and trespass fees.
- SPS moved to dismiss, arguing claim/issue preclusion, failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), RCW 61.24.127 bars the requested remedy, and the robosigning claim is time-barred; Sahm did not oppose the motion.
- The district court granted SPS’s motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, declining to reach SPS’s other defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states plausible claims under the cited statutes | Sahm alleges robosigned note copies and cites multiple statutes and constitutional provisions | SPS argued the complaint lacks facts linking conduct to the cited laws and thus fails Rule 8/Iqbal/Twombly plausibility | Court: Complaint fails to state a plausible claim; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) granted |
| Whether claim or issue preclusion bars the suit | Implicitly contests foreclosure and prior rulings | SPS argued prior litigation and dismissal preclude relitigation | Court: Did not reach preclusion issues after deciding 12(b)(6) dismissal |
| Whether RCW 61.24.127 prevents Sahm’s requested remedy (removal of lien/relief) | Requests release of liens and injunction against further sales | SPS contended statutory scheme limits available relief | Court: Did not decide RCW 61.24.127 question due to dismissal on pleadings |
| Whether robosigning claim is time-barred | Alleges robosigned signatures on specific 2018 and 2015 documents | SPS argued statute of limitations bars the claim | Court: Did not adjudicate statute-of-limitations defense after granting 12(b)(6) dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2010) (pleading must state a plausible claim; legal conclusions insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005) (complaint construed in favor of nonmoving party on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed)
- Toone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 716 F.3d 516 (10th Cir. 2013) (bare robo-signing allegations are often insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly)