Khmaissi v. Navient Solutions LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 LAURIE KHMAISSI, CASE NO. 20-6226 RJB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. DISMISS CASE WITH PREJUDICE 13 NAVIENT SOLUTIONS LLC f/k/a NAVIENT SOLUTIONS INC., 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 7. The 17 Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the file herein. 18 Originally filed in Clarke County, Washington Superior Court, this case was removed to 19 this Court based on the diversity of the parties’ citizenship and amount in controversy. Dkt. 1. 20 The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, the servicer of her student loan, should have informed her of 21 a loan forgiveness program in 2010 and instead, placed her loan in forbearance. Dkt. 1-1. She 22 alleges that she took out the loan 17 years ago. Id. The Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of 23 contract, Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, et. seq. (“CPA”) and for breach 24 of fiduciary duty. Id. 1 A. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motions to dismiss may be based on either the lack of a cognizable 3 legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri 4 v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken 5 as admitted and the complaint is construed in the plaintiff's favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 6 1295 (9th Cir. 1983). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not 7 need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement 8 to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of 9 a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-55 (2007) 10 (internal citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 11 the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if 12 doubtful in fact).” Id. at 555. The complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief 13 that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 547. 14 B. STATUTES OF LIMITATION 15 The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) should be granted and the case should be 16 dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff alleges that she took her loan out 17 years ago and the 17 Defendant failed to inform her of the loan forgiveness program 10 years ago. The Plaintiff’s 18 claims for breach of contract is barred by the six-year statute of limitation (RCW 4.16.040(1)), 19 her CPA claim is barred by the four-year statute of limitation (RCW 19.86.120) and her breach 20 of fiduciary duty claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitation (RCW 4.16.080(2)). 21 Moreover, the Plaintiff fails to respond to the motion to dismiss. 22 23 24 1 ORDER 2 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that: 3 The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) IS GRANTED and the case IS 4 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 6 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 7 Dated this 25th day of January, 2021. A 8 9 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24