Steiner v. Asset Acceptance, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8

9 TERRY STEINER, CASE NO. C19-0271 RSM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 11 v. RECONSIDERATION 12 ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, 13 Defendant.

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Terry Steiner’s Motion for 16 Reconsideration. Dkt. #29. On August 19, 2019, this Court granted Defendant Asset Acceptance, 17 LLC’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the action. Dkt. #27. Plaintiff now requests that the 18 Court reconsider its decision. The Court has determined that response briefing from Defendant 19 is unnecessary. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(3). 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff, the administratrix of Mr. David Steiner’s estate, brought this action against 22 Defendant under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Consumer 23 Protection Act (“CPA”). The action arose out of a dispute over the withholding of $28,000 in 24 1 proceeds for the sale of Mr. Steiner’s home due to a judgment lien held by Defendant against the property. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant, who had recorded a judgment against 2 Mr. Steiner, did not maintain a lien against Mr. Steiner’s home because of Washington’s 3 homestead laws. Id. (Arguing that “a judgment does not become a lien on homesteaded real 4 estate until the equity in the homestead exceeds $125,000.”). For that reason, Plaintiff argued, 5 Defendant unlawfully demanded money to satisfy the lien despite having no valid lien on Mr. 6 Steiner’s property. 7 This Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that under RCW 6.13.090, 8 properly recording a judgment immediately creates a lien on the excess value of homestead 9 property. Dkt. #27 at 6. The Court found that by recording both the original judgment and the 10 renewed judgment, Defendant was a valid lienholder at the time Mr. Steiner’s property was sold, 11 at which point the property was no longer subject to a homestead exemption. The Court 12 accordingly dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint. 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 A. Legal Standard 15 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). 16 “The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the 17 prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its 18 attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. 19 B. Plaintiff’s Motion 20 In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff claims that the Court should have 21 considered the fact that Defendant needed to file a claim in probate court in order to collect on its 22 judgment lien. Dkt. #29 at 2. Although Plaintiff describes this issue as “the lynch-pin of the 23 case,” she concedes that she never plead this claim in the original complaint. Id. at 8. (“The 24 1 Complaint does not allege that AA failed to file a claim in the estate as required by RCW 11.40.130 and RCW 11.40.070.”). For that reason, Plaintiff moves for both reconsideration and 2 leave to amend her original complaint. 3 As an initial issue, Plaintiff has improperly used this Motion as a means to raise an 4 argument that she could have raised earlier in the litigation. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of 5 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise 6 arguments . . . when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”) (emphasis 7 in original). Plaintiff originally disputed—and the Court resolved—the issue of whether 8 Washington’s homestead laws prevented Defendant from holding a lien against Mr. Steiner’s 9 property. Now, Plaintiff acknowledges Defendant’s status as a “judgment lienholder,” but 10 disputes whether Defendant has taken the necessary steps during the probate process to collect on 11 the judgment lien. Dkt. #29 at 2. This was not the original argument before the Court, and 12 Defendant is prejudiced by its inability to respond. On this basis alone, the Court may deny 13 Plaintiff’s motion. See Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian 14 Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Whether or not to grant reconsideration is 15 committed to the sound discretion of the court.”). 16 Even if the Court considered Plaintiff’s argument, it does not change the Court’s analysis 17 that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the FDCPA and CPA. Plaintiff originally claimed 18 that Defendant had “demanded money to which it was not entitled” due to the homestead 19 exemption. Dkt. #24 at 7. Now, Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant is a judgment lienholder 20 but disputes whether it took the proper steps under Washington’s probate law to collect from Mr. 21 Steiner’s estate. Dkt. #29 at 2 (citing RCW 11.40.130 and RCW 11.40.070). Whether Defendant 22 complied with RCW 11.40 to bring its claims against the estate falls under Washington state 23 probate law—not debt collection laws. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (FDCPA imposes civil 24 1 liability on debt collectors for prohibited debt collection practices). Consequently, Plaintiff has still failed to state a claim under the FDCPA and CPA. 2 IV. CONCLUSION 3 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, the relevant briefing, and the remainder of the record, 4 the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #29) is 5 DENIED. 6

7 DATED this 26th day of September 2019. 8 A 9 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10

19 20 21 22 23 24