IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MARY STRONG 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME 

LOANS, INC. ET AL., 

Defendants. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Case No. 6:16-cv-00233-MC (Lead Case) 

Case No. 6:16-cv-00331-MC (Trailing Case) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff, proceeding prose, initially brought the consolidated actions against various 

banks, trustees, and beneficiaries in the Deschutes County Circuit Court and it was subsequently 

removed to this Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs claims arise out of a property located at 65510 Old 

Bend Redmond Highway in Bend, Oregon, 97701. Plaintiff secured a $364,000 refinance loan 

for the property and subsequently defaulted on that loan. ECF No. 9-1. Following default, the 

Deed of Trust for the property was assigned and, through a series of related events, Plaintiff lost 

access to the property. ECF No. 9-2. For the fourth time, Plaintiff now brings an array of claims 

involving the property at issue. 

PREVIOUS LITIGATION 

Plaintiffs claims are nearly identical actions to those of Civ. Nos. 6:15-cv-1536 and 

6:15-cv-1966, which were consolidated by this Court. See Civ. No. 6:15-cv-1536 at ECF Nos. 

33, 41. After hearing oral argument and carefully considering Plaintiffs various contentions in 

those cases, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims brought under the Truth in Lending 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:16-cv-00233-MC Document 29 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 7
Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act for failure to state a claim and, due to various 

defects in Plaintiffs other claims in that case, this Court declined to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims. Id. at ECF No. 41. Plaintiff appealed that 

dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed her appeals based on the 

posture of those consolidated cases. Id. at ECF No. 47. 

In an apparent end-run around this Court's dismissal and the Court of Appeals' dismissal 

of her appeal, Plaintiff eliminated her TILA and RESP A claims and refiled these two actions. 

This Court then consolidated the cases sua sponte based on common issues of law and fact and 

in order to avoid additional unnecessary cost and delay under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

("FRCP") 42(a). See ECF No. 11. 

CURRENT MOTIONS 

Defendants in these consolidated cases have filed three motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 7, 

13, 16) as well as three concurrently-filed Requests for Judicial Notice (ECF Nos. 8, 14, 17). In 

their initial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6), Defendants 

lodged arguments against each of Plaintiffs claims. Defendants contend, among other things, 

that (1) Plaintiffs fraud claims are time-barred and insufficiently pled; (2) Plaintiffs lack of 

standing claim is composed of bare legal conclusions which rest on the "split note" theory of 

asset transfer, which has been rejected by the Ninth Circuit, see Cervantes v. Countrywide Home 

Loans, 656 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011); (3) Plaintiff has insufficiently pled her intentional 

infliction of emotional distress and slander of titles claims; ( 4) Plaintiffs slander of title claim is 

also time-barred; (5) Plaintiffs quiet title claim fails based on failure to allege tendering of debt; 

and ( 6) Plaintiffs request for declaratory relief fails due to lack of actual controversy. ECF No. 7 

at 3. Subsequently, Defendants learned that Plaintiff has no ownership in the property that is the 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:16-cv-00233-MC Document 29 Filed 04/06/16 Page 2 of 7
central focus of this case following a non-judicial foreclosure and trustee's sale of the property 

on December 17, 2015. ECF No. 13 at 2-3, ECF No. 15-1. This discovery prompted Defendants 

to file a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 13, for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(l), 

arguing that Plaintiff is not the real party in interest under Rule 17(a)(l). 

Plaintiff has also moved in the Deschutes County Circuit Court for default judgment 

against some defendants, apparently arising out of confusion related to the removal of one of the 

consolidated cases. See ECF No. 20. In addition, as in the prior actions, Plaintiff has filed a 

number of miscellaneous motions. ECF Nos. 23-26. 

I address all of these motions below. 

STANDARD 

I. Motion to Dismiss Under 12(b)(6) 

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient 

facts that "state claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the supporting factual allegations 

allow the court to infer the defendant's liability based on the alleged conduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). 

The factual allegations in a complaint must present more than "the mere possibility of 

misconduct." Id. at 678. In the case of prose litigants a court reviews the pleadings with a less 

stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers; the court views the complaint liberally but will 

not supplant vague and conclusory allegations. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); 

Litman v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014). 

II. Motion to Dismiss Under 12(b)(l) 

Rule 17 requires that: "An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:16-cv-00233-MC Document 29 Filed 04/06/16 Page 3 of 7
interest." Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a)(l). A plaintiff lacks "prudential standing" ifhe is not asserting his 

"own legal interests as the real party in interest ... . "Dunmore v. United States,358 F.3d 1107, 

1112 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The identity of the real party in interest, however, 

depends on the legal relationships of the parties under applicable substantive law."). Thus, the 

court should focus on "that portion of state law from which the specific right being sued upon 

sterns." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1094 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) 

(emphasis omitted). 

III. Motion for Default Judgment 

The decision to grant or deny a motion for default judgment is within the discretion of the 

court. Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988); Eitel v. 

McCool, 782 F .2d 14 70, 14 71-72 (9th Cir. 1986). There are a number of factors which may be 

considered when exercising that discretion. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72. Default judgments are 

ordinarily disfavored. Id. at 14 72. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Duplicative Matters and Judicial Notice 

Defendants Countrywide Horne Loans, Inc., ("Countrywide"), Bank of America, N.A., 

and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") collectively request that this 

court take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) a Deed of Trust securing to the 

property located at 65510 Old Bend Redmond Highway in Bend, Oregon, 97701 a $364,000 loan 

by Plaintiff Mary Strong who is Trustee of the Mary Strong Family Trust, recorded on March 23, 

2007, in the Deschutes County Records Office as 2007-17104; (2) an Assignment of Deed of 

Trust, recorded on July 20, 2010, in the Deschutes County Records Office as 2010-28180; (3) an 

Appointment of Successor Trustee recorded on July 20, 2010, in the Deschutes County Records 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:16-cv-00233-MC Document 29 Filed 04/06/16 Page 4 of 7
Office as 2010-28181; (4) a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, recorded on April 20, 2011, 

in the Deschutes County Records Office as 2011-14688; (5) a second Notice of Default and 

Election to Sell, recorded on March 20, 2012, in the Deschutes County Records Office as 2012-

009789; (6) a Notice of Sale Proof of Compliance, recorded on July 6, 2012, in the Deschutes 

County Records Office as 2012-026286; and (7) a Rescission Notice of Default recorded on July 

6, 2012, in the Deschutes County Records Office as 2012-027835. Req. for Jud. Notice, ECF No. 

8 (documents available at ECF No. 9, Exs. 1-7). Those same Defendants additionally request 

that this court take judicial notice of a Trustee's Deed evidencing that the subject property was 

sold in a trustee's sale to Stratagem Asset-Backed Credit Trust VI, under John P. Jones, Trustee, 

on December 17, 2015, recorded on January 25, 2016, in the Deschutes County Clerk's Office as 

2016-002518. Supp. Req. for Jud. Notice, ECF No. 14 (document available at ECF No. 15, Ex. 

1). Finally, Defendant Bank ofNew York ("B.N.Y.") Mellon Trust Company, N.A., requests that 

this court take judicial notice of a 20-year title search for the subject property through the First 

American Title Company of Oregon, attached to ECF No. 18, showing that B.N.Y. Mellon never 

had an interest in the property. 

In general, material outside of the pleadings may not be considered in ruling on a motion 

to dismiss unless the motion is treated as one for summary judgment and the parties are "given 

reasonable opportunity to present all materials made pertinent to such motion by Rule 

56." Jacobson v. AEG Capital Corp., 50 F.3d 1493, 1496 (9th Cir. 1995). One exception to this 

general rule allows the court to take judicial notice of"matters of public record," under Rule 201 

of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Lee v. County of Los Angeles, 240 F.3d 754, 774 (9th Cir. 

2001). Facts contained in public records are considered appropriate subjects for judicial 

notice. Santa Monica Food not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 

5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:16-cv-00233-MC Document 29 Filed 04/06/16 Page 5 of 7
2006). 

Upon analysis of the nine public documents in Defendants' various requests for judicial 

notice, this Court takes judicial notice of each under FRE 201, as they are matters of public 

record and not reasonably subject to debate. 

Following this Court's judicial notice of the sale of the property, I find that Plaintiff is not 

the real party in interest for at least her claim to quiet title, her declaratory relief claim, and her 

rescission claim. On consideration of grounds for each of the current motions to dismiss, and in 

light ofthis Court's rulings in the previous duplicative actions, Plaintiffs claims are dismissed. 

II. Motion for Default Judgment 

Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment appears to be based on contentions that a 

Defendant not herein named has failed to appear. See ECF No. 20-1. Upon review and in 

exercise of its sound discretion, this Court denies Plaintiffs motion. 

III. Bankruptcy Stay 

On November 6, 2015, GMAC Mortgage, LLC, also named by Plaintiff in the Member 

Case caption as Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., filed a Notice of Bankruptcy Status 

with this court. See 6:15-cv-1966-MC, ECF No. 15. Due to pending bankruptcy proceedings in 

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, any action as to those 

parties must be placed under an automatic stay. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(l). Accordingly, the above 

dismissal as to all other named defendants does not extend to GMAC Mortgage, LLC or 

Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., and Plaintiffs action against those parties is stayed 

pending update in bankruptcy status. 

Those parties are again ordered to notify this court within thirty days of the conclusion of 

their bankruptcy proceedings or, alternatively, if the Bankruptcy Court grants them limited relief 

6 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:16-cv-00233-MC Document 29 Filed 04/06/16 Page 6 of 7
from the automatic stay requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 362. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Requests for Judicial Notice, ECF Nos. 8, 14, 

17, are ACCEPTED, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 7, 13, 16, are GRANTED, and 

this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No.19, 

and her additional miscellaneous motions, ECF Nos. 23-26, are DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs 

claims are dismissed as to all defendants in both the Lead and Member Cases save for GMAC 

Mortgage, LLC and Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc. The action as to those two 

defendants is stayed pending bankruptcy proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this _L_ day of April, 2016. 

7 - OPINION AND ORDER 

\_ LMichael McShane 

United States District Judge 

Case 6:16-cv-00233-MC Document 29 Filed 04/06/16 Page 7 of 7