Boshers v. Evergreen Money Source Mortgage Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 13, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-05041
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Aug 13, 2025 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 CARL D. BOSHERS, JR., No. 4:25-CV-05041-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. DEFENDANT EVERGREEN SOURCE MORTGAGE 10 EVERGREEN MONEY SOURCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO MORTGAGE COMPANY and MTC DISMISS AND DISMISSING 11 FINANCIAL, INC., CASE 12 Defendants. ECF Nos. 5, 7, 10 13 Before the Court is Defendant Evergreen Money Source Mortgage 14 Company’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 7. 15 After Plaintiff failed to file a timely response to Defendant’s motion, the Court on 16 July 28, 2025, issued an Order to Show Cause, directing Plaintiff to respond to the 17 motion by August 11, 2025. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff then moved for leave to file a 18 Second Amended Complaint on August 1, 2025, ECF No. 10, and filed a response 19 to the Order to Show Cause on August 4, 2025, ECF No. 11. Plaintiff’s response 20 to the Order to Show Cause did not address the substance of Defendant’s Motion 1 to Dismiss. Rather, Plaintiff merely referred to two exhibits that “are described in 2 detail in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint[.]” Id. at 1-2.

3 Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause is deficient for two 4 independent reasons. First, contrary to the Court’s direction to “file a response to 5 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,” ECF No. 9 at 2, Plaintiff did not respond to

6 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Second, Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended 7 Complaint is not the operative complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (requiring 8 leave of Court to file). 9 After construing Plaintiff’s pro se pleadings liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of

10 San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), and having reviewed the record, 11 the Court finds Plaintiff offers no basis in law or fact to deny Defendant’s Motion 12 to Dismiss or to grant him leave to file his proposed Second Amended Complaint.

13 As Defendant conclusively argues, see ECF No. 13 at 2-4, the record indicates that 14 Plaintiff does not hold title to the property at issue, see generally ECF No. 8, and 15 thus lacks standing to assert claims in connection with the property. The Court 16 thus grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

17 to File Second Amended Complaint. See, e.g., Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 66 18 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a court dismisses a pro se 19 plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it is

20 absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint). 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,

3 ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. 4 2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 6, is DISMISSED with 5 prejudice.

6 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, ECF 7 No. 10, is DENIED. 8 4. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED as moot. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

10 Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to the parties, and CLOSE THE FILE. 11 DATED August 13, 2025.

12 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20