Glaviano v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

• Decision Date: 27 December 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13-2049 (RMC)
• Parties: FRANK GLAVIANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

FRANK GLAVIANO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13-2049 (RMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date: December 27, 2013

OPINION

Plaintiffs Frank and Pauline Glaviano, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint challenging the foreclosure of their property located at 1528 Vandagriff Way, Corona, CA 92883-7653. See Compl. [Dkt. 1]; id., Ex. 1 (Deed of Trust) [Dkt. 1-1]; id., Ex. 3 (Notice of Trustee's Sale) [Dkt. 1-1]. They sued JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; EMC Mortgage Corporation; Ameriquest Mortgage Company; and The Bank of New York Mellon (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants do not have "possession of the note" or a "documented property interest in the Note and Mortgage or Deed of Trust," Compl. at 4, that the "Deed of Trust is void and ineffective due to fraud," and that the Trustee's foreclosure sale is "void because the alleged beneficiary . . . never had standing to substitute the trustee," id. at 6-7. They further claim that the sale of their property at a foreclosure sale violates their due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 59.¹ Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs seek an

Page 2

injunction against the foreclosure sale. See Mot. for Injunction [Dkt. 2]; Compl. at 59-60 (seeking a cease and desist order). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed.

Even though pro se complaints are construed liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) and United States v. Byfield, 391 F.3d 277, 281 (D.C. Cir. 2004), this Court must have jurisdiction in order to adjudicate a claim. A complaint can be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which may be done by a court sua sponte at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see, e.g., Jerez v. Republic of Cuba, 777 F. Supp. 2d 6, 15 (D.D.C. 2011). When determining whether a case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a court reviews the complaint liberally, granting the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged. Barr v. Clinton, 370 F. 3d 1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, "the Court need not accept factual...