ORDER ISSUING SANCTIONS AND DISMISSING CASE

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court sua sponte. Previously, the court ordered Jill J. Smith of the Natural Resource Law Group, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff Lajuana Locklin Johnson, to show cause why the court should not sanction her pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (OSC (Dkt. # 3); see also Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) The court then ordered Ms. Smith to appear, and she presented argument on July 28, 2016, on why the court should not issue sanctions. Having considered the written and oral arguments of counsel, the appropriate portions of the record, and the relevant law, and considering itself fully advised, the court DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE and SANCTIONS Ms. Smith as described more fully herein.

II. BACKGROUND

On June 6, 2016, Ms. Smith filed a complaint on behalf of Ms. Johnson seeking to enforce and obtain damages pertaining to her purportedly rescinded loans. (Compl.) The rescission notices that Ms. Johnson attached to her complaint make clear that she sent those notices more than a decade after executing the loans. (See Rescission Notices (Dkt. # 1-1).) The Truth in Lending Act (hereinafter, "TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1635 et seq., permits rescission of certain loans but includes a three-year statute of repose. Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 790, 792-93 (2015) ("The Truth in Lending Act gives borrowers the right to rescind certain loans for up to three years after the transaction is consummated.").

Having presided over several of Ms. Smith's TILA rescission cases that feature substantially similar complaints to the one in this case, the court researched Ms. Smith's other filings in this district. (See OSC at 5-6 (collecting cases).) Ms. Smith has filed a troubling series of such cases.1 The Honorable Thomas S. Zilly sanctioned Ms. Smith $5,000.00 plus over $10,000.00 in attorneys' fees after ordering Ms. Smith to show cause regarding how binding Supreme Court caselaw does not foreclose her claim and receiving no response. Johnson v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, et al., No. C15-1754TSZ, Dkt. ## 35, 41. The claim in Johnson v. Nationstar strongly resembles Ms. Johnson's untimely effort to rescind pursuant to TILA in this case.

In light of this backdrop, the court stayed this case and ordered Ms. Smith to show cause no later than July 7, 2016, why the court should not issue sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (OSC at 8-10.) The court indicated that it was specifically considering sanctioning Ms. Smith and Ms. Johnson by "dismissing this case, issuing monetary sanctions against Ms. Smith, and requiring Ms. Smith to file a copy of this order each time she files a new case in federal court." (Id. at 9.) Ms. Smith failed to file a timely response to the court's order to show cause. (See Dkt.) The court therefore ordered Ms. Smith to appear on July 28, 2016, for an in-court sanctions hearing. (7/18/16 Min. Ord. (Dkt. # 4) at 1-2.)

On July 27, 2016, almost three weeks after her response was due and the day before the sanctions hearing, Ms. Smith filed a response to the order to show cause. That response states the facts of the case as Ms. Smith sees them but without reference to any affidavit or other verified source. (OSC Resp. (Dkt. # 5) at 1-4.) In addition, Ms. Smith attempts to address some of the specific considerations the court ordered her to respond to in its prior order. (Id. at 5-6.) However, she makes no reference to any of the prior cases she has filed in this court or "the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases cited" in the order to show cause. (See OSC at 9 ("Ms. Smith's response to this order must address how Ms. Johnson's claims, as stated in the complaint, comply with Rule 11(b)(2) in light of Nieuwejaar, Green Tree, the other cases in this District identified above, and the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court cases cited therein. Finally, Ms. Smith must address what "information and belief" she has that Ms. Johnson's loan in this case "was never consummated."); see generally OSC Resp.)

Ms. Smith appeared in court on July 28, 2016, and defended the factual allegations and legal theory underpinning Ms. Johnson's claim. (7/28/16 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 6).) In general terms, Ms. Smith argued that circumstances surrounding the loan, such as the manner in which it was funded, make it questionable whether the loan was ever consummated. If the loan was never consummated, she reasons, the three-year statute of repose never began and therefore never expired.

The matter of Rule 11 sanctions is now before the court.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 governs sanctions of the type issued herein. Rule 11(b) provides in full:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). In its June 22, 2016, order, the court placed Ms. Smith on notice and allowed her to respond regarding potential violations of Rules 11(b)(2) and 11(b)(3).

B. Violations of Rule 11

Ms. Johnson alleges that "[u]pon information and belief, the subject loan was never consummated." (Compl. ¶ 13.) This conclusory allegation appears intended to circumvent TILA's three-year statute of repose, which begins upon consummation of the loan.2 See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) ("An obligor's right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first. . . ."); Jesinoski, 135 S. Ct. at 792-93. At the hearing, Ms. Smith argued that if the loan was never consummated, the three-year statute of repose has not begun, has not expired, and therefore the rescission is timely.

In the numerous opportunities the court has afforded Ms. Smith to provide a factual basis for this allegation, she has provided none. Ms. Smith has also provided no evidence of any legal or factual "inquiry" that she performed, and accordingly the court can only determine whether the inquiry was "reasonable under the circumstances" based on the allegations and arguments that Ms. Smith has advanced in opposition to the frivolity of Ms. Johnson's claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).

Under TILA, "[c]onsummation means the time that a consumer becomes contractually obligated on a credit transaction." 12 C.F.R. § 226.2(a)(13); see also Grimes v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 340 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2003). "Under the Official Staff interpretation, state law determines when a borrower is contractually obliged." Grimes, 340 F.3d at 1009 (citing 12 C.F.R. § 226, Supp. 1 (Official Staff Interpretations), cmt. 2(a)(13)); see also id. at 1010 (applying California law to determine whether a California loan was consummated for purposes of TILA). In Washington, "for a contract to form, the parties must objectively manifest their mutual assent" to "sufficiently definite" contractual terms. Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox Corp., 94 P.3d 945, 949 (Wash. 2004). In addition, "the contract must be supported by consideration to be enforceable." Id. (citing King v. Riveland, 886 P.2d 160, 164 (Wash. 1994)).

Ms. Smith indicates that on October 6, 2005, Ms. Johnson "entered into what she thought was a mortgage loan to purchase" property. (OSC Resp. at 1.) At oral argument, Ms. Smith argued that if the loan was never funded then the loan was never consummated.3 However, Ms. Smith conceded at oral argument that the relevant parties signed the loan paperwork, money was transferred to the sellers of the house, and Ms. Johnson took possession of the property. These facts unarguably give rise to a contract under Washington Law. See Keystone, 94 P.3d at 949; see also Grimes, 340 F.3d at 1009-10. Ms. Smith nonetheless argued that the loan was unconsummated at that juncture based on the manner in which it was funded and the subsequent history of the loan.

Ms. Smith's protestations in her response and at oral argument that the loan was table-funded4 (id. at 4-5) and her account of the history of the loan subsequent to its consummation (OSC at 2-4) are both irrelevant to her allegation that "the loan was never consummated" (Compl. ¶ 13). Despite being afforded numerous opportunities to do so, Ms. Smith has failed to provide any legal authority—or even a cogent argument— supporting the proposition that the type of funding or subsequent transfers of a loan impact whether the loan was consummated.5 (See, e.g., OSC Resp. at 5 ("One of the questions at issue is that if a party is merely an originator and NOT a lender or creditor, is there some theory where a loan contract could be considered consummated? If Plaintiff's loan was a table-funded loan, the answer must be `no.'").) Nor has Ms. Smith pointed to any further evidence providing "information and belief" that "the subject loan was never consummated." (Compl. ¶ 13.)

The foregoing analysis leads the court to conclude that Ms. Smith's factual allegation that "the loan was never consummated" and the legal theories underpinning that allegation violate Rules 11(b)(2) and 11(b)(3).6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) (requiring that "the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law"); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) (requiring that "factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery"). The court analyzes the appropriate sanctions below.

C. Appropriate Sanctions

Rule 11(d) limits sanctions to "what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(d). Ms. Smith's actions in this case demonstrate that the previous sanctions she incurred—dismissal with prejudice, $11,972.50 in attorneys' fees payable by her client, and a $5,000.00 sanction payable to the court—constituted insufficient specific deterrence. See Johnson v. Nationstar, No. C15-1754TSZ, Dkt. ## 35, 41-43. The court finds it appropriate to impose greater monetary sanctions payable by Ms. Smith and her law firm and dismiss the case with prejudice.7 The court accordingly issues the following sanctions:

(1) No more than 30 days after the date of this order, Ms. Smith and the Natural Resource Law Group must jointly pay sanctions of $10,000.00 to the court;

(2) No more than 30 days after the date of this order, Ms. Smith and the Natural Resource Law Group must fully reimburse Ms. Johnson for any attorneys' fees or costs paid by Ms. Johnson in conjunction with this case and file certification with the court that they have done so; and

(3) The court dismisses the complaint with prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, the court DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE and SANCTIONS Ms. Smith as described above.