Melville et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation et al, No. 2:2017cv00030 - Document 59 (E.D. Wash. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 45 SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (LR, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Melville et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation et al Doc. 59 1 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 2 Mar 01, 2018 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 DANIEL P. MELVILLE and MARY R. MELVILLE, NO: 2:17-CV-30-RMP 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, also known as The Bank of New York as Trustee for Citicorp Mortgage Securities Trust Series 2007-6; CHASE HOME FINANCE; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC; and QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP OF WASHINGTON, ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 BEFORE THE COURT is a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 45, by Defendants Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee, sued as 21 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NA, AS TRUSTEE ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 “The Bank of new York Mellon Corporation, f/k/a The Bank of New York as 2 Trustee for Citicorp Mortgage Securities Trust Series 2007-6” (“BNY Mellon 3 Trustee”), and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”).1 Plaintiff Daniel Melville2 4 did not respond to the motion. Having reviewed Defendants’ motion and reply, the 5 remaining record, and the relevant law, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for the 6 reasons that follow. 7 BACKGROUND 8 9 This Court previously granted in part and denied in part the Chase and BNY Mellon Trustee Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against those 10 entities for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 30. 11 The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ conversion claims as to all Defendants and all of Ms. 12 Melville’s claims against Chase based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 13 (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., . The Court granted Mr. Melville leave to 14 amend a deficient FDCPA claim under § 1692g, an opportunity that Mr. Melville 15 did not take, and the Court found that Mr. Melville had stated plausible claims 16 against Chase under §§1692e and 1693f. ECF No. 30 at 18. 17 18 19 1 Chase succeeded named Defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC, following a merger on May 1, 2011, at which point Chase Home Finance, LLC, ceased to exist. ECF No. 47 at 2. 20 2 21 remaining Defendants. ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NA, AS TRUSTEE ~ 2 Plaintiff Mary Melville’s claims were dismissed in their entirety against the 1 Plaintiffs repeatedly have failed to participate in this case, even after the Court 2 expressly warned Plaintiffs, on several occasions, of the potential consequences of 3 failure to participate, respond to pleadings, or abide by Court orders. Namely, 4 Plaintiffs did not participate in the scheduling conference in this matter on 5 November 2, 2017. Following the conference, the Court notified Plaintiffs in its 6 scheduling order that a consequence of continued non-participation or non- 7 compliance with Court orders could result in dismissal of their lawsuit. ECF No. 42 8 at 2. 9 In a letter to the Court received on November 20, 2017, Plaintiff Mr. Melville 10 represented that he had been busy with Plaintiffs’ real estate development business 11 and had experienced problems receiving mail. The Court extended the Plaintiffs’ 12 opportunity to respond to the summary judgment motion of former Defendant 13 Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”) until December 11, 2017, and directed 14 the Clerk’s Office to provide a copy of the Court’s Order to Plaintiffs at their e-mail 15 address in addition to their mailing address. ECF No. 53. To date, Plaintiffs have 16 not filed a waiver to receive court documents electronically nor filed a motion for 17 leave to obtain a login and password to file documents through the Electronic Case 18 Filing (“ECF”) system. Even with the extended timeframe, Plaintiffs still did not 19 respond to NWTS’s summary judgment motion, and the Court granted that motion 20 on its merits on January 10, 2018, dismissing NWTS as a Defendant. 21 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NA, AS TRUSTEE ~ 3 1 The instant motion was set for hearing after Plaintiffs should have received 2 the order granting summary judgment to co-Defendant NWTS, which noted 3 Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to that motion. In addition, the Court twice has issued a 4 notice to Plaintiffs, as pro se litigants, regarding the need to respond to motions for 5 summary judgment to avoid potential entry of summary judgment in the moving 6 party’s favor. ECF Nos. 39 and 52. The Court’s notice further explained in detail 7 the requisite format and components of a response to a summary judgment motion. 8 See id. However, Plaintiffs did not file any response to Defendants’ summary 9 judgment motion and have not otherwise participated in this action since Mr. 10 Melville’s November 2017 letter. 11 Defendants urge in their reply that Plaintiff Mr. Melville’s failure to respond 12 should be read as a concession regarding the merits of Defendants’ summary 13 judgment motion. ECF No. 55 at 2. In addition, Defendants submit documents that 14 were not before the Court at the time it resolved the prior motions to dismiss, and 15 provide additional factual support for their legal arguments. ECF Nos. 47, 48, and 16 49. 17 Local Rule 7.1(d) provides that “failure to comply” with the District’s rules of 18 motion practice “may be deemed consent to the entry of an Order adverse to the 19 party who violates these rules.” Nevertheless, the Court has analyzed the motion on 20 its merits, and finds that Defendants’ motion should be granted on its merits. 21 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NA, AS TRUSTEE ~ 4 1 The Melvilles obtained a mortgage in December 2007. Shortly after 2 origination of the loan, the mortgage lender indorsed the promissory note to Chase in 3 2008. Plaintiffs had not defaulted on the promissory note when Chase began 4 servicing it; rather, Plaintiffs stopped making payments on the loan in November 5 2011. Chase referred the loan for foreclosure to NWTS in September 2013. The 6 Melvilles’ loan is not and was never securitized or deposited in Chase Mortgage 7 Finance Trust Series 2007-S6, for which BNY Mellon serves as Trustee, and BNY 8 Mellon submits evidence that they would have had no reason to contact Plaintiffs 9 and have no record of any contact. 10 Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no 11 genuine dispute as to any material fact that the movant is entitled to judgment as a 12 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 13 317, 322 (1986). As a matter of law, Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claims against Defendants 14 may succeed only if Defendants were acting as “debt collectors” under the statute. 15 See Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2017); see also 15 16 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2). The FDCPA defines a debt collector as “(1) a person whose 17 principal purpose is to collect debts; (2) a person who regularly collects debts owed 18 to another; or (3) a person who collects its own debts, using a name other than its 19 own as if it were a debt collector. Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 817 20 F.3d 131, 136 (4th Cir. 2016). (rephrasing 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) for clarity) 21 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NA, AS TRUSTEE ~ 5 1 (emphasis in original). Defendants demonstrate that Chase was not interacting with 2 Plaintiffs as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, and BNY Mellon Trustee was not 3 interacting with Plaintiffs at all. Therefore, summary judgment dismissal is 4 appropriate of Plaintiff Mr. Melville’s remaining claims against Defendants Chase 5 and BNY Mellon Trustee. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Defendants Chase and BNY Mellon Trustee’s Motion for Summary 8 9 10 11 Judgment, ECF No. 45, is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claims against Chase and BNY Mellon Trustee are dismissed with prejudice. 3. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter Judgment for Defendants 12 Chase and BNY Mellon Trustee, named on the Complaint as “The Bank 13 of New York Mellon Corporation, also known as The Bank of New York 14 as Trustee for Citicorp Mortgage Securities Trust Series 2007-6”; “Chase 15 Home Finance”; and “JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association.” 16 The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to 17 18 counsel and to Plaintiffs. DATED March 1, 2018. 19 20 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 21 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NA, AS TRUSTEE ~ 6
]]>
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.
