Moss v. Clark County Title et al, No. 3:2023cv05317 - Document 37 (W.D. Wash. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting 33 Motion to Dismiss and denying 35 Cross Motion; Gary Sautter and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development terminated. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Moss v. Clark County Title et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RAYMOND MOSS, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05317-RJB Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CLARK COUNTY TITLE, CHASE BANK NA, GARY SAUTTER, U.S. DEPTARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Defendants U.S. Department of Housing and 18 Urban Development’s (“HUD”) and Gary Sautter’s, HUD’s Acting Director of Asset Recovery, 19 sued in his official capacity, Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) and (6) Motion to Dismiss First 20 Amended Complaint. Dkt. 33. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in 21 opposition to the motion and the file herein. 22 23 In this case the Plaintiff, Raymond Moss, contends that Defendant Clark County Title, while acting as an escrow agent, failed to pay off a second mortgage on Mr. Moss’s home. Dkt. 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 6. Mr. Moss asserts that the holder of that mortgage, HUD, is now threatening to garnish his 2 wages, and seeks, in part, an injunction prohibiting HUD from doing so. Id. 3 HUD and Acting Director of Asset Recovery Sautter now move for dismissal of the 4 claims against them with prejudice and without leave to amend. For the reasons provided below, 5 the motion (Dkt. 33) should be granted. 6 7 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. FACTS 8 The following are facts from the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 6), which for 9 purposes of the pending motion, are presumed true and HUD concedes as much (Dkt. 33). 10 Mr. Moss contracted with Defendant Clark County Title to provide escrow services for 11 the 2016 sale of a home located at 6305 NE 87th Ave, Vancouver, Washington. Dkt. 6 at 3. 12 Clark County Title correctly identified the primary mortgage, through Chase Bank NA (who was 13 voluntarily dismissed from this case (Dkt. 20)) and the secondary mortgage, which originated 14 with Chase Bank NA but was funded by HUD (“HUD loan”). Id. Clark County Title failed to 15 request a payoff from HUD. Id. 16 Unbeknownst to Mr. Moss, when the property was sold, the HUD loan was not repaid. 17 Dkt. 6 at 4. Mr. Moss learned the HUD loan was still outstanding when he received a collection 18 notice from a HUD authorized collection agent. Id. Mr. Moss reported the issue to “Treasury 19 who is responsible for the HUD program” and they “refused to absolve or acquit [him] of the 20 indebtedness.” Id. at 5. Mr. Moss faces garnishment of his wages via “Administrative Wage 21 Garnishment,” which the Amended Complaint concedes is an administrative process. Id. at 5-6. 22 The Amended Complaint does not allege discrete claims. Dkt. 6. It references Bivens v. 23 Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 2 1 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et. seq., and the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1331. Id. 3 Due to Clark County Title’s error, Mr. Moss contends he has been injured including, but 4 not limited to, interest, penalties, and fees assessed on the HUD loan, and damage to his credit 5 rating which has effected his ability to acquire financing. Dkt. 6 at 4. He seeks (1) a declaration 6 that “indemnification by [Clark County Title] and coverage under any applicable errors and 7 omissions insurance policies” is appropriate, (2) attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the 8 agreement with Clark County Title, and (3) “injunctive relief enjoining the collection of the past 9 due amount from Plaintiff by HUD until the underlying dispute is resolved.” Id. at 6-7. 10 11 B. PENDING MOTIONS HUD and Acting Director of Asset Recovery Sautter now move for dismissal of the 12 claims against them under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) 13 for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 33. The Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss 14 and a cross motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 35) which is noted for consideration on 15 November 17, 2023. The Plaintiff did not meaningfully address HUD and Sautter’s arguments 16 regarding this Court’s jurisdiction or his failure to state a claim against them. Still, to the extent 17 that they applied to the motion to dismiss, the Court considered issues raised in the Plaintiff’s 18 pleading (Dkt. 35). HUD and Sautter filed a reply (Dkt. 36) and the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 33) 19 is ripe for review. 20 21 II. DISCUSSION A. STANDARD FOR RULE 12(b)(1) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 22 A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) if, considering the factual allegations 23 in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the action: (1) does not arise under the Constitution, 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 3 1 laws, or treaties of the United States, or does not fall within one of the other enumerated 2 categories of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution; (2) is not a case or controversy within the 3 meaning of the Constitution; or (3) is not one described by any jurisdictional statute. Baker v. 4 Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962); D.G. Rung Indus., Inc. v. Tinnerman, 626 F.Supp. 1062, 1063 5 (W.D. Wash. 1986); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). 6 The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. See 7 United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1107 8 (9th Cir. 1995). If a claim does not fall squarely within the strict terms of a waiver of sovereign 9 immunity, a district court is without subject matter jurisdiction. Mundy v. United States, 983 10 11 F.2d 950, 952 (9th Cir. 1993). A federal court is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until plaintiff establishes 12 otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Stock West, 13 Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, plaintiff bears the 14 burden of proving the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Stock West at 1225. 15 B. STANDARD ON RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss may be based on either the lack of a 17 cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal 18 theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material 19 allegations are taken as admitted and the complaint is construed in the plaintiff's favor. Keniston 20 v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1983). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) 21 motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 22 grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 23 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 4 1 U.S. 544, 554-55 (2007)(cleaned up). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 2 relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are 3 true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 555. The complaint must allege “enough facts to state a 4 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 547. 5 C. BIVENS CLAIM 6 To the extent Mr. Moss attempts to assert a claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 7 Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the claim should be 8 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). 9 Mr. Moss seeks injunctive relief against HUD and Sautter in his official capacity. A 10 Bivens suit, however, cannot be brought against a federal agency, like HUD. F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 11 510 U.S. 471 (1994). Moreover, a “Bivens action can be maintained against a defendant in his or 12 her individual capacity only, and not in his or her official capacity.” Consejo de Desarrollo 13 Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157, 1173 (9th Cir. 2007). This is 14 because a Bivens suit against a defendant in his or her official capacity would be another way of 15 pleading an action against the United States – a suit which would be barred by the doctrine of 16 sovereign immunity. Id. Mr. Moss fails to demonstrate that the United States has waived 17 sovereign immunity here. There is no showing the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this 18 claim. 19 Additionally, to the extent Mr. Moss asserts a Bivens claim, it should be dismissed for 20 failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). He fails to point to a cognizable legal theory on 21 which he could recover. 22 23 In Bivens, the U.S. Supreme Court “recognized for the first time an implied right of action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen’s constitutional 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 5 1 rights.” Hernandez v. Mesa, 137 S. Ct. 2003, 2006 (2017). Expanding Bivens remedies is 2 disfavored. Vega v. United States, 881 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2018). Indeed, since Bivens, 3 which involved a warrantless search and seizure of an individual alleged to be involved in a drug 4 offense, the U.S. Supreme Court “has only expanded this ‘implied cause of action’ twice. In 5 Davis v. Passman, the Court provided a Bivens remedy under the Fifth Amendment's Due 6 Process Clause for gender discrimination.” Id. (citing Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 28 7 (1979)). In Carlson v. Green, the U.S. Supreme Court “expanded Bivens under the Eighth 8 Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause for failure to provide adequate medical 9 treatment to a prisoner.” Id. (citing Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980)). 10 Mr. Moss has failed to demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit 11 Court of Appeals have expanded Bivens in the context of the federal government’s denial of a 12 request to stop a garnishment related to a debt on a HUD loan. The circumstances of this case 13 “arise in a new Bivens context;” it is “different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases 14 decided” by the U.S. Supreme Court or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 15 137 S. Ct. 1834, 1864 (2017)(cleaned up). Mr. Moss has not shown that expansion of Bivens is 16 appropriate here. He has not identified a cognizable Bivens claim. 17 Further, in order to maintain a Bivens action, a plaintiff must identify the violation of a 18 federal constitutional right. Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66 (2001). The 19 Plaintiff has not done so here and has not alleged any facts which could be construed as a 20 violation of his constitutional rights. Moreover, he seeks injunctive relief from HUD – a request 21 to enjoin official governmental action – relief a Bivens claim cannot give. Solida v. McKelvey, 22 820 F.3d 1090, 1095-1096 (9th Cir. 2016). His Bivens claim should be dismissed. 23 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 6 1 2 D. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT AND FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION STATUTE To the extent Mr. Moss asserts a claim pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 3 U.S.C. § 2201 or the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 1331, the claims should be 4 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 5 The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims against the United States 6 unless the United States waives its sovereign immunity. Mundy at 952. Further, “[t]he United 7 States may be sued only if a statute expressly waives its sovereign immunity.” Alaska Dep't of 8 Nat. Res. v. United States, 816 F.3d 580, 585 (9th Cir. 2016)(emphasis added). 9 Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, “[i]n a case of actual controversy within its 10 jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations 11 of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be 12 sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201. That Act does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity. The 13 federal question statute provides, in full, that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction 14 of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 15 U.S.C. § 1331. 16 Mr. Moss fails to point to a provision of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 17 or in the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, that expressly waives the United States 18 sovereign immunity. Accordingly, to the extent he attempts to make claims under either statute 19 against HUD or Mr. Sautter, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider them. Moreover, 20 HUD and Mr. Sautter’s argument, that the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not 21 state a cognizable claim for relief, also has merit. 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 7 1 To the extent he makes a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2 or the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, against HUD or Sautter, the claims should be 3 dismissed. 4 E. DISMISSAL WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 5 A court may dismiss a complaint without leave to amend when amendment would be 6 7 8 9 futile. Carrico v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011). Dismissal of the claims against HUD and Sautter should be with prejudice and without leave to amend. Mr. Moss has failed to identify an applicable waiver of sovereign immunity. The government properly points out that in order to assert a claim under the 10 Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551, et. seq., (which does contain a limited waiver of 11 sovereign immunity), Mr. Moss must challenge a “final agency action” under 5 U.S.C. § 704. 12 Dkt. 33. It notes, and Mr. Moss does not dispute, that he seeks to enjoin a preliminary action, 13 not a final action. Id. The government points out that wage garnishments like the one here can 14 be challenged in an administrative hearings process under 31 C.F.R. 285.11. Id. Mr. Moss 15 makes no showing that he has engaged in that process. 16 F. CONCLUSION AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 Defendants HUD and Acting Director of Asset Recovery Sautter’s motion to dismiss 18 (Dkt. 33) should be granted. All claims against them should be dismissed with prejudice and 19 without leave to amend. 20 The Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 33) was contained in his cross 21 motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 35). To the extent the Plaintiff moves for summary 22 judgment on his claim for injunctive relief against HUD and Acting Director of Asset Recovery 23 Sautter (Dkt. 35) the motion should be denied. To the extent issues are raised against the other 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 8 1 remaining Defendant in this case, Clark County Title, the Plaintiff’s motion for summary 2 judgment (Dkt. 35) will be considered after the noting date. 3 4 5 III. ORDER Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that: Defendants U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Gary 6 Sautter’s Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 7 (Dkt. 33) IS GRANTED: 8 9 10 o All claims asserted against Defendants U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Gary Sautter ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 11 o To the extent the Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on his claim for 12 injunctive relief against Defendants U.S. Department of Housing and 13 Urban Development and Gary Sautter the motion (Dkt. 35) IS DENIED; 14 and 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 o The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 35) WILL BE CONSIDERED AFTER THE NOTING DATE. The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. Dated this 8th day of November, 2023. A ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 23 24 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS - 9
]]>
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.
