John Marts v. US Bank

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 12 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN MARTS; MICHELLE MARTS, No. 16-35240
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00198-RAJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. BANK, as Trustee, Successor in
Interest to Bank of America, National
Association as Successor by Merger to
LaSalle Bank National Association as
Trustee for Certificate Holders of Bear
Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Asset-
Backed Certificates Series 2007-HE6;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2018**
Seattle, Washington
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: FISHER, GOULD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The Marts appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of U.S.
Bank and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) in their
Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) action. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary
judgment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). We may
affirm on any ground supported by the record. See UMG Recordings, Inc. v.
Augusto, 628 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The WCPA has a four-year statute of limitations. See Wash. Rev. Code §
19.86.120 (“Any action to enforce a claim for damages under [the WCPA] shall be
forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action
accrues.”). The Marts’ cause of action accrued more than four years before they
filed their complaint. None of the arguments advanced by the Marts to avoid the
statute of limitations is persuasive. Therefore, their claims are time-barred.
Furthermore, even if the Marts’ claims were not time-barred, the Marts did
not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their injuries were caused
by the alleged deceptive acts of U.S. Bank and MERS. See Hangman Ridge
Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531, 533 (Wash. 1986)
(holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate the alleged injuries were caused by the
2
deceptive acts of the defendant to make out a claim under the WCPA); see also
Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc., 170 P.3d 10, 22
(Wash. 2007) (“A plaintiff must establish that, but for the defendant’s unfair or
deceptive practice, the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury.”).
AFFIRMED.
3