Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00153/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Cecil L. Sayer, a single man and resident of 

the State of Arizona; and Adam Brye Sayer, 

a single man and resident of the State of 

Arizona, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Western Residential Mortgage, Inc., a 

foreign company; Countrywide Home 

Loans, Inc., a foreign company; Bank of 

American, N.A., a foreign company; et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-153-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) and 

Motion for a Ruling (Doc. 20). For the reasons stated below, the motions are granted. 

BACKGROUND

 Plaintiffs filed this complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court on December 

21, 2011. (Docs. 1-2). Defendants removed the complaint to federal court in the District 

of Arizona on January 23, 2012. (Doc. 1). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 

21, 2012, and Plaintiffs have not filed a response. (Doc. 18). 

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard 

 Arizona’s local rules provides that if a party “does not serve and file the required 

answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial 

or granting of the motion and the Court may deal with the matter summarily.” LRCiv. 

Case 2:12-cv-00153-GMS Document 21 Filed 07/20/12 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

7.2(i). Before dismissing a case as a sanction, a court must nevertheless consider “(1) the 

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its 

dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

sanctions.” Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 1998). If 

these factors, on balance, favor dismissal, the Court may act according to the local rule. 

See Wystrach v. Ciachurski, 267 Fed. App’x 606 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming district 

court’s dismissal of unopposed motion when three factors weighed in favor of dismissal 

and two weighed against dismissal). 

II. Analysis

 This is one of many cases filed in the District of Arizona in which homeowners 

challenge a lender’s right to foreclose upon property. Plaintiffs here allege that 

Defendants convinced them to take out a loan that Plaintiffs neither needed nor wanted 

on property they owned outright, that the terms of the loan were not properly disclosed, 

and that the Defendants “engaged in a malicious and coercive campaign to manufacture 

default on the Plaintiff’s predatory loan,” and thereby “engaged in a racket to steal the 

equity from Plaintiff’s home.” (Doc. 1-2 ¶¶ 53–54). They allege nine causes of action, 

including violating Arizona’s RICO law, fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good 

faith and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, violating 

the Home Ownership and Equity Protecting Act, violating the Truth in Lending Act, 

violating the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and Unjust Enrichment. (Doc. 1-2). 

 Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs’ claims “overwhelmingly consist of 

allegations concerning representations supposedly made during the loan origination 

process,” and because Defendants played no role in that process but only acquired the 

loan later, most of the claims are improperly plead against them.1

 Defendants assert that 

 

1

 The loan was negotiated and originally issued by former Defendant Western 

Residential Mortgage, Inc., which was never served and which was dismissed from this 

lawsuit on June 11, 2012. (Doc. 19). 

Case 2:12-cv-00153-GMS Document 21 Filed 07/20/12 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

allegations that would otherwise be properly directed at them are improperly pled, timebarred, or based on criminal statutes that do not provide a private cause of action. 

 The Court has reviewed the motion to dismiss, and finds that Defendants’ 

arguments are convincing. Plaintiffs’ claims under the Home Ownership and Equity 

Protection Act and the Truth in Lending Act appear to be untimely. Plaintiffs have not 

pled the elements of fraud, consumer fraud, or unjust enrichment with particularity 

against Defendants, since these claims are based in false statements made by the original 

lender. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ claims of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing 

and breach of fiduciary duty are predicated on statements that the original parties to the 

loan promised to modify its terms and then failed to do so. Although Defendants stepped 

into the shoes of the original parties to the contract as successors in interest, the alleged 

promises to forgive or modify the loan were not part of the obligations to the contract. 

The Court is mindful of its evaluation of the motion as it considers the five factors 

regarding dismissal. 

 The first three factors all weigh in favor of dismissal. Dismissal will further the 

public’s interest in resolving this matter expeditiously and the court’s interest in reducing 

its docket. There is no risk to Defendants in granting their motion summarily, and some 

risk of further cost and delay to them should the Court permit Plaintiffs to respond later 

than the local rules allow. The fourth factor weighs against dismissal; although dismissal 

for failure to respond to the motion to technically plays against the public interest of 

hearing cases on the merits, a motion to dismiss has been filed, the arguments it presents 

are strong. The Court recognizes that it has less severe sanctions available, so the final 

factor weighs against dismissal. 

 In total, three of the five factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and two weigh 

against. Combined with a review of the motion itself, the Court’s evaluation of these 

factors suggests that summary dismissal in accordance with the local rules is proper. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:12-cv-00153-GMS Document 21 Filed 07/20/12 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and 

Motion for Ruling are granted (Docs. 18, 20). The Clerk of Court is directed to 

terminate this action. 

 Dated this 20th day of July, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00153-GMS Document 21 Filed 07/20/12 Page 4 of 4