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

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MIMI SANCHEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ABN AMRO MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-318RSL

ORDER REGARDING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by

defendant ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. (“ABN AMRO”). (Dkt. #11). Plaintiff Mimi

Sanchez, who is suing on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges that ABN

AMRO charged her a $30 “Priority Proc [sic] Fee” not authorized by her loan documents when

she paid off her loan in 2005. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed in their

entirety because, among other reasons, they are preempted by regulations of the United States

Treasury Department, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”).

Defendant’s arguments are premised on its assertion that it is an operating subsidiary of

LaSalle Bank Midwest National Association, a parent national bank. The pleadings, however,

Case 2:06-cv-00318-RSL Document 24 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 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

1

 Defendant requested that the Court take judicial notice of the fact that it is an operating

subsidiary of a national bank. Defendant argued that the Court could confirm the relevant facts

because, it claims, the OCC’s website lists defendant as an “Operating Subsidiary” of LaSalle, a

“Parent National Bank.” Reply at p. 2 (citing www.occ.treas.gov/customer). The OCC’s

website lists several operating subsidiaries of LaSalle whose names begin with “ABN AMRO,”

but none of them is ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. Defendant has not explained that

discrepancy, and the Court will not assume that it is one of the listed entities. 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS - 2

do not contain those facts.1 Defendant submitted a declaration setting forth those facts with its

reply in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings. The declaration converts the

motion into one for summary judgment. Plaintiff has requested the opportunity to take

discovery to respond to the declaration, and the request is well taken.

In light of these developments, the Court held a telephone conference with the parties on

October 3, 2006. Following that telephone conference, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1)

plaintiff shall be allowed thirty days to conduct limited discovery regarding whether defendant is

an operating subsidiary of a parent national bank; (2) no later than November 3, 2006, defendant

shall file a motion for summary judgment based on the preemption issue; defendant shall note

the motion for November 20, 2006; (3) plaintiff’s response to the motion shall be filed on or

before November 20, 2006; (4) the motion and the response memoranda shall be limited to 10

pages; (5) no reply will be accepted; (6) the Court will contact the parties to schedule a joint oral

argument on the dispositive motions in this case and Gorman v. National City Home Loan

Services, Inc., C06-618RSL; both motions involve the preemption issue; and (7) the Clerk of the

Court is directed to remove from the motions calendar defendant’s motion for judgment on the

pleadings (Dkt. #11).

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00318-RSL Document 24 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2