Brown v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Grp.

Decision Date05 August 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 3:18-cv-01148-J-32MCR
PartiesCRAIG BROWN, Plaintiff, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint with Prejudice with Incorporated Memorandum of Law ("Wells Fargo Motion") (Doc. 39) and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 54); Defendant Fidelity National Title Group's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint with Prejudice with Incorporated Memorandum of Law ("Fidelity Motion") (Doc. 42) and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 57); Amica Insurance Company's[] Amended Motion to Dismiss theAmended Complaint with Prejudice and Memorandum of Law ("Amica Motion") (Doc. 45) and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc.60); Defendant Town of Rockport, Maine's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with Prejudice with Incorporated Memorandum of Law ("Town of Rockport Motion") (Doc. 49) and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 62); Defendant Town of Camden's Motion to Dismiss All Claims of Plaintiff Craig Brown Pursuant to [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 12(b)(1), (3), and (6) with Incorporated Memorandum of Law ("Town of Camden Motion") (Doc. 51) and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 61); Motion by Defendants Ellen Gorman and Thomas Warren to Dismiss All Claims Against Them [Pursuant to] [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 12(b)(2), (3), & (6) ("Gorman and Warren Motion") (Doc. 55) and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 63); Defendant City of Austin's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint ("City of Austin Motion") (Doc. 65) and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 69); and Defendant PNC Bank's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff, Craig Brown's Amended Complaint with Prejudice and with Incorporated Memorandum of Law ("PNC Motion") (Doc. 74) and Plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (Doc. 83).2 For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Motions be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Background

On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") and Fidelity National Title Group ("Fidelity").3 (Doc. 1.) Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 6), to which Plaintiff responded by filing a combined response and motion for summary judgment (Doc. 12). Based on the issues raised in Plaintiff's combined response and to avoid piecemeal resolution of Plaintiff's claims, the Court allowed Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to include all the claims he wished to litigate in this action. (Doc. 26.) The Court further clarified that if Plaintiff deemed it appropriate, he could "name additional defendants in his amended complaint, without seeking leave of Court to do so." (Doc. 28.)

On February 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, naming eight additional Defendants, including Amica Insurance Company ("Amica"), PNC Bank ("PNC"), Michael Ferrara ("Ferrara"), the Town of Camden ("Camden"), theTown of Rockport, the City of Austin, Judge Thomas Warren ("Justice Warren"), and Judge Ellen Gorman ("Justice Gorman").4 (Doc. 29.) Plaintiff contends that the Defendants are "'loosely associated in fact' and their actions supported a conspiracy by the Defendants named in 2:10-CV-00063[-]GZS, 2:10-CV-00523[-]GZS, 2:11-CV-00426[-]JAD and 2:12-CV-00168[-]GZS to defraud the Plaintiff of his property rights associated with 36 Stonehurst Drive[,] Camden, Maine and constitute a pattern of RICO activity per Title 18 U.S.C. [§] 1961 (c) and (d)." (Id. at 3, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff now alleges various claims against Defendants, including violations of his Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and RICO violations (18 U.S.C. § 1961), including retaliation against a crime victim (18 U.S.C. § 1513), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503), mail and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343), and extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951).5 (Id. at 3, ¶ 5.)

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff provides a timeline of alleged events related to Plaintiff's Maine property and a boundary dispute with his neighbor, Defendant Ferrara, dating back to approximately 2001, as well as the ensuing litigation that resulted therefrom in the Maine state and federal courts. (Id. at 5-14, ¶¶ 17-75.) Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that in 2002, after a physical altercation with Ferrara, Plaintiff was "charged with Felony Assault and Disorderly Conduct" and "pled guilty to Disorderly Conduct and paid a $400 fine."6 (Id. at 6, ¶ 25.) Plaintiff also makes vague allegations about being subjected to threats, extortion, and stalking by Ferrara, neighbors and state police as a result of the boundary dispute with Ferrara. (Id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 23-34.) Plaintiff also claims that "Ferrara was/is electronically monitoring communications at the Plaintiff's home and 'spotting' for the Police that have threatened and abused the Plaintiff nationwide." (Id.)

In 2009, Plaintiff alleges he removed part of a fence erected by Ferrara, which Plaintiff claimed was on his property. (Id. at 8, ¶ 37.) As a result, Plaintiff was charged with "Felony Criminal Mischief" and convicted of Misdemeanor Criminal Mischief (case number SCR-083-2009).7 (Id. at 8, ¶¶ 38-42.) After his arrest, Plaintiff contacted his homeowner's insurance company Amica to request legal assistance, but Amica responded that his policy did not cover crimes. (Id. at ¶ 39.)

Thereafter, Ferrara filed a civil suit in the Knox County Superior Court in and for the State of Maine, case number RE-09-10, which Plaintiff claims was "an attempt to get a legal judgment to support the ongoing Adverse Possession." (Id. at 9, ¶ 43; Doc. 35-1.) According to Plaintiff, although the court did not have jurisdiction over the case, it ruled in Ferrara's favor. (Doc. 29 at 9, ¶ 45.) Plaintiff claims that the judgement in RE-09-10 is "void because it was made without jurisdiction based on the FE Beal Survey in violation of Title 30-A, M.R.S.A. 4406 & 4407, and the Camden Ordinances." (Id. at ¶ 47.) Plaintiff also contends that Ferrara's adverse possession impugned Plaintiff's title to his property. (Id. at ¶ 48.)

Plaintiff alleges that, starting in March 2010, as a result of the state rulings and the property dispute with Ferrara, he filed four pro se complaints in the District Court of Maine, including case numbers 2:10-CV-0063-GZS, 2:10-CV-00523-GZS, 2:11-CV-00426-JAD, and 2:12-CV-GZS ("Maine District Court cases"). (Id. at 10-11, ¶¶ 49-54.) Plaintiff further alleges that he was "threatened and abused constantly by Police, Detectives, Judges and Court Clerks during the federal litigation and the appeals [that] lasted [through] 2013," that he filed four Judicial Complaints with the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and that he "filed repeated Motions to get Maine Federal Judges to recuse" which were denied. (Id. at 11, ¶ 55.)

In 2013, Plaintiff allegedly filed for HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) relief on his mortgages with Wells Fargo8 and PNC Bank and claims he "informed the banks of the illegal RE-09-10 decision, the federal lawsuits[,] and the loss of a negotiable title to property, and asked both banks repeatedly for legal assistance, but both banks failed to provide assistance to the Plaintiff." (Id. at ¶ 56.) Plaintiff contends that Wells Fargo reduced his mortgage by five percent, but PNC "refused the Plaintiff any reduction under Federal Programs by deliberately delaying sending the Plaintiff an application, and then stating that he had missed the filing deadline." (Id. at ¶ 57.) Plaintiff also claims that he "reported the Adverse Possession [and] void RE-09-10 judgement [to Fidelity]" but it denied his claim. (Id. at ¶ 58.)

In 2015, Plaintiff filed another complaint in Cumberland County Superior Court for the State of Maine, case number CV-00109-2015, against Amica, Fidelity, Wells Fargo, and PNC alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and unfair business practices. (Id. at 12, ¶ 60; Doc. 33-2.) Plaintiff also filed three "Death Knell Motions to compel the Maine Supreme Court to hear CV-00109-2015 before trial," but Justice Ellen Gorman denied all three motions for appellate review and refused to recuse herself "despite the fact that she had ruled against Plaintiff in the Knox County 2003 Assault Case." (Id. at ¶¶ 61-63.) Plaintiff alsoalleges he filed four "Judicial Complaints and several motions for Judge Warren to recuse [himself] from hearing CV-00109-2015 but he also refused." (Id. at ¶ 64.) According to Plaintiff, the judgements in the federal cases and CV-00109-2015 are void "because the judgments were obtained by judicial misconduct and threats/extortion during litigation and all of the Judges who heard the Complaints refused Motions to Recuse repeatedly." (Id. at 12-13, ¶ 67.)

Plaintiff then claims he attempted to refinance his Maine home in 2018, but "Wells Fargo would only reduce the mortgage balance to the value of similar houses in the area ($174,000) and when Plaintiff brought up the PNC mortgage and impugned title, Wells Fargo sent him a letter stating that Wells Fargo was going to foreclose." (Id. at 13, ¶ 68.) Plaintiff also claims that he received correspondence from a Wells Fargo lawyer "indicating that Wells Fargo [was] going to use the Plaintiff's Title Insurance to guarantee the property to any potential buyer in a foreclosure sale," but Plaintiff contends that "a foreclosure sale with the property title impugned by the Adverse Possession will violate Title 30-A, M[.]R.S.A. 4406 [&] 4407." (Id. at ¶¶ 69-70.)

According to Plaintiff, the Town of Camden has allowed Ferrara to "keep his fence on the Plaintiff's lot" despite purportedly violating Camden Ordinances and Maine statutes. (Id. at ¶ 71.) Plaintiff also alleges that the Town of Camden, the Town of Rockport, and the Maine Police...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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