Amina v. WMC Fin. Co.

Decision Date05 July 2018
Docket NumberCIVIL NO. 18–00143 DKW–KSC
Citation329 F.Supp.3d 1141
Parties Melvin Keakaku AMINA and Donna Mae Amina, Plaintiffs, v. WMC FINANCE CO., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

Melvin Keakaku Amina, Honolulu, HI, pro se.

Donna Mae Amina, Honolulu, HI, pro se.

Adrian L. Lavarias, Crystal K. Rose, Bays Lung Rose & Holma, Mark G. Valencia, Case Lombardi & Pettit, Honolulu, HI,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Derrick K. Watson, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

In an effort to invalidate a mortgage that is currently the subject of a pending foreclosure action, the Aminas, proceeding pro se, bring claims against several creditors and/or servicing entities alleging violations of federal and state law. This is the Aminas' third action filed in this district court concerning this mortgage transaction. Defendants seek dismissal of the Aminas' claims under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. Because the requirements of claim and issue preclusion have been met, and because Plaintiffs' claims are additionally time-barred or fail to state a claim, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions. Plaintiffs are granted limited leave to amend claims that are not precluded or time-barred, with instructions below.

BACKGROUND

The Aminas bring claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"),1 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (collectively, "MERS"), Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. ("NTC"), and WMC Finance Co.,2 asserting eight causes of action: a quiet title claim; a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim ("FDCPA"); a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claim ("RESPA"); an accounting claim; an Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices claim under HRS Chapter 480 ("UDAP"); a Relief From Judgment claim under FRCP 60 ; a Truth In Lending Act claim ("TILA"); and a Declaratory Judgment claim. Chase and MERS filed a Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 14, and NTC filed a substantive joinder in that Motion, Dkt. No. 26.

In light of the substantial record of litigation involving the Aminas' property and subject loans, the Court first recounts the earlier lawsuits between the parties, before addressing the present claims.

I. Prior Lawsuits

The Aminas' claims relate to the same Mortgage on their real property, located at 2304 Metcalf Street # 2, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 ("Property") that is at issue in a pending foreclosure proceeding3 and in two prior matters in this district court that were decided in defendants' favor.4 See Compl. ¶ 203, Dkt. No. 1–1. On March 20, 2010, the Aminas filed the first lawsuit, Melvin Keakaku Amina, et al. v. WMC Mortgage, Corp. et al. , Civil No. 10–00165 JMS–KSC (the "First Lawsuit"). The second case, entitled Melvin Keakaku Amina, et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York, et al. , Civil No. 11–00714 JMS–BMK (the "Second Lawsuit"), was filed on November 28, 2011. Those cases challenged the validity of their Mortgage and sought to quiet title.

A. The First Lawsuit

In the First Lawsuit, the Aminas alleged claims against Defendants WMC Mortgage LLC, General Electric Company ("GE"), MERS, Chase Home Finance LLC and Chase Home Finance, Inc., and LCS Financial Services Corporation for seeking to quiet title and for violations of TILA, RESPA, the FDCPA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and state law. The Aminas' claims arose from a mortgage transaction backing two loans from WMC—one for $880,000, and another for $220,000—and a threatened foreclosure of the Property located at 2304 Metcalf Street # 2, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822. See Amina , 2011 WL 1869835, at *1 (D. Haw. May 16, 2011). The district court, in the Second Lawsuit, summarized the proceedings in the First Lawsuit as follows:

The court addressed two rounds of dispositive motions, including (1) granting WMC and GE's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granting LCS's Motion for Summary Judgment, 2011 WL 1869835 (D. Haw. May 16, 2011) ; and (2) granting WMC and GE's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 2011 WL 3841001 (D. Haw. Aug. 26, 2011).
After this motions practice, several of Plaintiffs' claims in their May 31, 2011 Second Amended Complaint still stood, including a claim for quiet title against MERS entities, Chase entities, and "Unknown Owners."
Civ. No. 1000165 JMS–KSC, Doc. No. 87, SAC Count II. This claim asserted that MERS entities and Chase entities have all falsely claimed a right to the subject property, and that Plaintiffs are entitled to ownership of the subject property without interference by Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 150, 152–55.
* * * *
In the meantime, motions for summary judgment were filed by the remaining Defendants. Doc. Nos. 118, 121. While these Motions were pending, Plaintiffs stopped participating in this action, resulting in its dismissal with prejudice. See 2012 WL 612463, at *3 (D. Haw. Feb. 24, 2012). This dismissal was affirmed on appeal, and the mandate issued on June 16, 2014. Doc. No. 175.

2015 WL 84760, at *3 (D. Haw. Jan. 7, 2015), aff'd , 694 F. App'x 492 (9th Cir. 2017). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the First Lawsuit. 554 F. App'x 555 (9th Cir. 2014).

B. The Second Lawsuit

In the Second Lawsuit, the Aminas filed their original complaint against Bank of New York Mellon ("BONY") on November 28, 2011, their First Amended Complaint on June 5, 2012, and their Second Amended Complaint adding U.S. Bank N.A. as a defendant on October 19, 2012.5 After motions practice, the issue on summary judgment in the Second Lawsuit was narrowed to "whether Plaintiffs entered into the mortgage loan at issue," and its validity. 2015 WL 84760, at *4 (D. Haw. Jan. 7, 2015). The district court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment found both that the Mortgage was validly transferred to U.S. Bank and also that the Aminas were not entitled to quiet title. The district court explained the Mortgage transactions at issue in the litigation:

Throughout the pendency of both the First Action and this action, there was no dispute that Plaintiff entered into two mortgage loans on the subject property with WMC in 2006. (The mortgage loan for $220,000 has been released, leaving the one for $880,000 at issue.) Indeed, the Complaint in the First Action (which included WMC as a Defendant) recited that Plaintiffs entered into these two mortgage loans with WMC, and asserted claims based upon alleged improprieties by WMC and WMC's loan documents. See Civ. No. 10–00165 JMS–KSC, Doc. No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 38–81. And in this action, the parties have focused not on whether Plaintiffs ever entered into mortgage loans on the subject property, but rather whether these mortgage loans were transferred to U.S. Bank. See, e.g. , 2012 WL 3283513, at *5 (D. Haw. Aug. 9, 2012) (explaining that Plaintiffs assert "that Defendant is not a mortgagee and that there is no record evidence of any assignment of the mortgage loan to Defendant"); 2013 WL 1385377, at *3 (D. Haw. April 4, 2013) (same).

2015 WL 84760, at *4. Turning to the merits of the claims, the district court determined that "U.S. Bank is the mortgagee on the mortgage loan on the subject property," based upon the following evidence in the summary judgment record:

Defendants have presented evidence that in June 2006, Plaintiffs' mortgage loan was transferred to JP Morgan Trust pursuant to the PSA, as is shown in the Mortgage Loan Schedule for the JP Morgan Trust listing Plaintiffs' mortgage loan. See Doc. No. 141–1, Alegria Decl. ¶¶ 5–6; Doc. No. 142–2, Defs.' Ex. D (PSA); Doc. No. 158, Defs.' Ex. E at 1, 43 (loan schedule). Plaintiffs' $880,000 mortgage loan is identified in the Loan Schedule by the Loan ID number ****1019, which also appears on the upper left-hand corner of the note and mortgage. Doc. No. 141–1, Alegria Decl. ¶ 6; see also Doc. No. 158, Defs.' Ex. E at 1, 43; Doc. No. 142–1, Defs.' Ex. C (Balloon Note for $880,000); Doc. No. 141–5, Defs.' Ex. B (mortgage on subject property referring to Balloon Note for $880,000). Further, on April 4, 2012, an assignment of mortgage from MERS, as nominee for WMC, its successors, and assigns, to U.S. Bank (again, as trustee for the JP Morgan Trust), was recorded in the Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances. See Doc. No. 142–4, Defs.' Ex. F. Finally, Defendants present a copy of the Note, endorsed in blank, and Alegria asserts that JP Morgan Chase has possession of it. Doc. No. 141–1, Alegria Decl. ¶ 4; Doc. No. 142–1, Defs.' Ex. C. This evidence supports the conclusion that U.S. Bank is the mortgagee on the mortgage loan on the subject property.

2015 WL 84760, at *6. The court rejected the Aminas' challenge to the validity of the transfer based upon the various assignments of the Mortgage and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, holding:

it is well-established that a borrower, who is a third party to the PSA and assignment, lacks standing to challenge their validity.... Plaintiffs are not parties to either of them, and therefore do not have standing to challenge them. See also Abubo v. New York Mellon , 2011 WL 6011787, at *8 (D. Haw. Nov. 30, 2011) (rejecting argument that assignment is invalid on two bases "(1) because a third party lacks standing to raise a violation of a PSA, or (2) because noncompliance with terms of a PSA is irrelevant to the validity of the assignment (or both)"); Nottage v. Bank of New York Mellon , 2012 WL 5305506, at *5 (D. Haw. Oct. 25, 2012) (same); Benoist v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n , 2012 WL 3202180, at *5 (D. Haw. Aug. 3, 2012) (same).

2015 WL 84760, at *8–9. Upon granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court entered judgment and closed the case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. 694 F. App'x 492, 494 (9th Cir. 2017).

II. Plaintiffs' Current Action

On March 15, 2018, the Aminas initiated this civil action against the Chase Defendants, MERS,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Reno v. Nielson
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • 8 Mayo 2020
    ...the Court follows the well-settled rule that a claim for suchrelief, standing alone, is not a cause of action." Amina v. WMC Fin. Co., 329 F. Supp. 3d 1141, 1166 (D. Haw. 2018) (citations omitted); see also Ramos v. Chase Home Fin., 810 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1132-33 (D. Haw. 2011)). In any even......
  • Walker v. Walker
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • 3 Junio 2021
    ...for failure to satisfy Rule 8. See Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Amina v. WMC Fin. Co., 329 F. Supp. 3d 1141, 1161 & n.15 (D. Haw. 2018), aff'd, 812 F. App'x 509 (9th Cir. 2020). All allegations of a claim are to be set forth in numbered paragraphs that......
  • Fundingsland v. OMH Healthedge Holdings, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 18 Julio 2018
  • Monet v. State
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • 11 Enero 2022
    ...... Hancock v. Kulana Partners, LLC , Case No. 13-cv-00198-DKW-WRP, 2020 WL 5665056, at *5 (D. Hawai`i Sept. 23, 2020) (citing Amina v. WMC Finance Co ., 329. F.Supp.3d 1141, 1166 (D. Haw. 2018) (“To the extent. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as an. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT