Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arp v. Superior Court of State of Washington

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 20, 2013

DEAN ARLO ARP, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants

DEAN ARLO ARP, Plaintiff, Pro se, Auburn, WA.

WANDA ELENE ARP, Plaintiff, Pro se, Auburn, WA.

CHARLES C. MILLER, Plaintiff, Pro se, Auburn, WA.

For SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, IN AND FOR KING COUNTY, HOLLIS HOLMAN, Sued in Private Capacity, BRIAN D. GAIN, Sued in Private Capacity, REGINA S. CAHAN, Sued in Private Capacity, Defendants: Patricia Ann Oxendine, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Civil Litigation Division, Washington, DC; David Seaver, PRO HAC VICE, OFFICE OF THE KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, Seattle, WA.

OPINION

JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge.

Page 114

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiffs Dean Arp, Wanda Arp, and Charles Miller have filed this abstruse suit against six named defendants: a Washington State Superior Court, two judges and a commissioner of that court, and two attorneys who represented parties adverse to Plaintiffs in prior proceedings in that court. Plaintiffs also sue 199 " John

Page 115

and Jane Doe[s]." See Compl., ¶ 17. In two separate Motions to Dismiss, Defendants raise different grounds for jettisoning the case. Although there are multiple reasons for doing so, the Court need look no further than lack of personal jurisdiction.

I. Background

Plaintiffs' Complaint is nearly incomprehensible, but seems to arise from unlawful-detainer suits filed against the Arps in King County (Washington) Superior Court. [1] Plaintiffs allege that Dean and Wanda Arp purchased one home in 2000 and another in 2005, both of which were subject to mortgages. See Compl., ¶ 32. In 2008, the Arps " discovered through public news that the BANK/FINANCE/MORTGAGE BUSINESS in not only Washington but across America had engaged in fraudulent practices in almost every facet of the mortgage transactions" and " became convinced that . . . almost every alleged mortgage transaction was incorporating some sort of fraud." Id., ¶ ¶ 33, 38. They decided " that BADGES OF FRAUD, massive evidence of appearance, suspicion upon the Arp's alleged mortgage transactions called for a clearing up and explanation!" Id., ¶ 38. Plaintiffs then " made a personal, legal, and moral decision to not be associated with any type of fraudulent practice" and attempted to unilaterally cancel their mortgage obligations on the basis that " [f]raud of any sort voids a contract." Id., ¶ ¶ 41-42, 46-48. According to court records provided by the King County Defendants, Plaintiffs' homes entered foreclosure and were purchased by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Federal National Mortgage Association. See King County Mot., App. C (Judgment in Case No. 11-2-41312-8 KNT in King County); id., App. D (Judgment in Case No. 12-2-23496-5 KNT in King County). When Plaintiffs refused to vacate the premises following the foreclosure sales, these institutions retained attorneys (now named as Defendants) to represent them in unlawful-detainer proceedings against Plaintiffs. See id., App. A (Parties' filings in Case No. 11-2-41312-8 KNT in King County); id., App. B (Parties' filings in Case No. 12-2-23496-5 KNT in King County). When judges (also named as Defendants) ruled in favor of the institutions, see Judgment in Case No. 11-2-41312-8 KNT; Judgment in Case No. 12-2-23496-5 KNT, Plaintiffs responded by filing the present suit.

Central to their numerous claims is Plaintiffs' belief that the Defendant judges had a financial interest in ruling for the financial institutions that now own the Arps' houses, and that the judges improperly based their rulings on this bias instead of the law. See Compl., ¶ ¶ 60, 70, 72-74. Plaintiffs argue that because the judges " participate[] in a benefit system that is minimum 60% invested in mortgage backed securities," id., ¶ 60, these institutions " provid[ed] value to [the judges'] retirement and benefit system." Id., ¶ 74. As Defendants " knew, should have known, and had knowledge that each and every BANK/FINANCE/MORTGAGE/ FORCLOSURE issue before [them] was covered in Badges of Fraud," id., ¶ 57, they were not impartial. Id., ¶ ¶ 60, 65. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.