Asef Saad Maura v. Scotiabank P.R.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 17-2263 (DRD) |
| Parties | YIRIES JOSEPH ASEF SAAD MAURA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOTIABANK PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Pending before the Court are the following motions filed by plaintiffs: (a) Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend Judgment at Docket No. 118 Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Docket No. 122); (b) Motion to Alter or Amend Opinion and Order at Docket No. 215 and for Clarification of the Record (Docket No. 216); (c) Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Allegations Under FRBP 15(d) et al. (Docket No. 226); (d) Motion for Settlement Conference (Docket No. 227); (e) Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of Opinion and Order at Docket No. 230 and Request for Leave to File Document in the Spanish Language (Docket No. 234); (f) Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, to Alter or Amend Omnibus Opinion and Order at Docket No. 257 and Orders Issued at Docket Nos. 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272 (Docket No. 279); and (g) Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, to Alter or Amend Amended Opinion and Order at Docket No. 288 (Docket No. 301). All motions were properly opposed to by the defendants.
Also pending before the Court is codefendant, United States of America's Motion for Joinder and to Dismiss (Docket No. 286); and codefendant, MidFirst Bank's Motion for Entry of Order Granting its Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 303).
The Court notes that on March 31, 2019, an Omnibus Opinion and Order was entered wherein Motions to Dismiss filed by Codefendants Banco Popular of Puerto Rico (Docket No. 40); James B. Nutter & Company and Federal National Mortgage (Docket No. 42); Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC and Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (Docket No. 44); and Roosevelt Cayman Asset Company and Rushmore Loan Management Services (Docket No. 59) were granted. For the sake of clarity, the operative complaint is the Third Amended Complaint. See Docket No. 17.
Thus, the Court deems necessary to clarify the scope of its Omnibus Opinion and Order at Docket No. 257, which was subsequently made applicable to other codefendants, for instance, (a) Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter, "Freddie Mac") (Docket Nos. 121 and 272); (b) TRM LLC jointly with RNPM, LLC (Docket Nos. 271 and 205); (c) Bank of America, N.A. (Docket Nos. 242 and 270); (d) MWPR CR, LLC (Docket Nos. 239 and 269); (e) Wells Fargo & Co. (Docket Nos. 238 and 268); (f) Banco Cooperativo de Puerto Rico (Docket Nos. 233 and 267); and (g) Lime Residential Ltd., Lime Properties, Ltd. and DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (Docket Nos. 232 and 266).
It is further necessary to reiterate the Court's determination of granting several motions for joinder to several motions to dismiss as to several defendants before and after the entry of the Omnibus Opinion and Order at Docket No. 265, such as, (a) Scotiabank de Puerto Rico (Docket Nos. 64, 84, 129, 141, 290, 294); (b) FirstBank Puerto Rico (Docket Nos. 58, 85, 130, 138, 287 and 299); (c) Oriental Bank (Docket Nos. 63, 90, 92, 132, 140 and 288); (d) Banco Santander Puerto Rico (Docket Nos. 60 and 139); (e) MidFirst Bank (Docket Nos. 184, 187 and 303); (f) Tax Free PR Target Maturity Fund, Inc. (Docket Nos. 186 and 188); (g) CitiMortgage, Inc. (Docket Nos. 196 and 202); (h) REO PR Corp., Roosevelt Cayman Asset Company II/Servicing Rushmore Loan Management Services and Roosevelt REO PR IV Corp. (Docket Nos. 199 and 203); (i) PRAsset Portfolio 2013-1 International, LLC (Docket Nos. 200 and 204); (j) Santander Financial, Inc. (d/b/a Island Finance Corp.) (Docket Nos. 213, 214, 281 and 282); (k) Cooperativa de Ahorro y Crédito de Ciales (Docket Nos. 223 and 228); and (l) Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC, and Wells Fargo & Company (Docket Nos. 248 and 258). As to the defendants herein mentioned who effectively sought joinder to any motion to dismiss that was granted, the Court finds that a DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE is applicable in its entirety as to said Codefendant.
Additionally, the Court finds that any additional self-standing motion to dismiss or seeking joinder to motion to dismiss is equally GRANTED. See Docket Nos. 103, 121, 135, 184, 186, 196, 199, 205, 286 and 329.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Opinion and Order at Docket No. 215 and for Clarification of the Record (Docket No. 216); Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, to Alter or Amend Omnibus Opinion and Order at Docket No. 257 and Orders Issued at Docket Nos. 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272 (Docket No. 279); and Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider, to Alter or Amend Amended Opinion and Order at Docket No. 288 (Docket No. 301). As all motions to dismiss and joinders thereof have been granted, plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Allegations Under FRBP 15(d) et al. (Docket No. 226) and Motion for Settlement Conference (Docket No. 227) are hereby DENIED as MOOT.
Lastly, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiffs' motions at Docket Nos. 122, 216, 226, 227, 234, 279 and 301. Further, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants' motions at Docket Nos. 286 and 303. The Court again explains the reasoning.
At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' pleadings included in the Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 17) are unclear, general, and very broad. As a result, this Court has undertaken a maximum of effort to fully comprehend.
Plaintiffs brought a class action suit on behalf of themselves and Class Members who either have been subject to illegitimate foreclosures or sought modifications of payment on their individual mortgage loans through their mortgage servicers of Defendants. Plaintiffs contacted Defendants in an attempt to reduce their loan payments due to a reduction of job hours which affected their payment capacity. (Docket No. 17 at 23). The Defendants allegedly explained to Plaintiffs that they would submit Plaintiffs to a loss mitigation process which would make Plaintiffs eligible to make reduced monthly payments during a three-month trial period. Id. Plaintiffs allege they complied with the reduced payments but were still harassed by Defendants for delinquency of their payments. (Docket No. 17 at 24). Plaintiffs assert that their rights under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) were not acknowledged. Id. The HAMP program provided a mechanism to stay any foreclosure proceeding and help Plaintiffs fulfill the promise of smaller loan payments. Id. Plaintiffs thus claim that Defendants' failure to honor the HAMP program provisions left them "financially devastated." Docket No. 17 at 25.
All Plaintiffs are residents of Puerto Rico with real estate property holdings in Puerto Rico. (Docket No. 17 at 16).1 The unknown Plaintiffs, and the Class Members which they represent, are likewise described in very broad terms as any person who has real estate in Puerto Rico and whose real estate is encumbered by a mortgage loan serviced by any of the Defendants in the instant case.Id. The Class Members also include mortgagors who have complied with their obligations under the loan modification programs and have not received any of the benefits of the alleged modifications. (Docket No. 17 at 28). Defendants, on the other hand, are banks or mortgage loan servicers committed to providing mortgage loans to qualified individuals in Puerto Rico. (Docket No. 17 at 15). Unknown Defendants, on the other hand, are considered any bank, financial institution or mortgage loan servicers devoted to providing mortgage loans to qualified individuals with offices, branches and subsidiaries in Puerto Rico which can be liable for actions alleged in the Complaint. (Docket No. 17 at 16). The Plaintiffs alleged individual claims related to mortgage loan transactions with one or more of the Defendants. The Complaint, however, fails to specify which financial institution, i.e. which Defendant, financed which loan and/or were designated to provide services under federal laws, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), and Home Affordable Refinance Program ("HARP"). (Docket No. 17). The Plaintiffs instead seem to believe that their individual claims revolve around similar issues and can be addressed under one Complaint. In sum, the Court is unable to identify what loss, if any, each plaintiff suffered, and which defendant caused said loss.
As Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires plaintiffs to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Under Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a plaintiff must "provide the grounds of his entitlement [with] more than labels and conclusions." See Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011)(emphasis ours)("in order to 'show' an entitlement to relief a complaint must contain enough factual material 'to raise a right to relief above the speculativelevel on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).')(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (citation omitted). Thus, a plaintiff must, and is now required to present allegations that "nudge [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible" in order to comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a). Id. at 570; see e.g. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court's inquiry occurs in a two-step process under the current context-based "plausibility" standard established by Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, and Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662. "Context based" means that a Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that comply with the basic elements of the cause of action. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-679 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial