Hardie v. CIT Bank
| Decision Date | 16 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | GJH-20-2627 |
| Parties | DARRELL HARDIE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIT BANK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Plaintiffs Darrell and Yanic Hardie bring this civil action against Defendants CIT Bank and OWB REO, LLC, alleging illegal trespass and conversion Count I; violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act “RESPA”, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act “FDCPA”, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., and the Truth in Lending Act “TILA”, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. Count II; unjust enrichment and constructive trust Count III slander of title Count IV; quiet title Count V; and various other claims Count VI. ECF Nos. 1 &9. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 10. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 D. Md. 2021. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.
The facts in this action stem from a foreclosure proceeding that began on September 1, 2015, when an order to docket foreclosure was filed regarding a property located at 10809 Riverview Rd., Fort Washington, MD 20744. ECF No. 9 ¶ 10. Ratification of the foreclosure sale was entered on May 3, 2017. Id.
On the evening of May 30, 2017, Plaintiff Darrell Hardie was at the 10809 Riverview Road property waiting for his wife and minor son to come home when, around 9:30 pm, “he was alerted by the home security system that intruders were breaking into the property.” Id. ¶¶ 12, 14. Plaintiffs allege that, on that “dark and rainy night ” Defendants' “‘real estate agent, '” Shea Farmer-Johnson, and eight “accomplices”-“six grown athletic men and two grown large women”-conducted a “tactical invasion” of his home, “vandaliz[ing] and criminally trespassing]” onto the property and “proceeding] to terrorize” Mr. Hardie. Id. ¶¶ 13-15, 18. According to the Amended Complaint, Mr. Hardie observed Ms. Farmer-Johnson and her accomplices through security cameras and saw them cut the wires to the security cameras and dismantle the screws and bolts securing the gate entry system at the property's entrance- roughly a quarter mile down a driveway from the house's front door-in order to enter the property. Id. ¶¶ 15-16, 18. The group next drove their vehicles up the driveway and tried to enter the house, “rattling the front door lever” and trying “every way possible to break into the home, ” including “shouting at [Mr. Hardie] to ‘come out'” and threatening “grave and imminent physical harm” if he failed to comply. Id. ¶¶ 16-17, 20-21. Plaintiffs allege that two of the men “ran around back” while “another two tried to smash or pry the front door down with metal tools including crowbars and sledgehammers.” Id. ¶ 19. Others “tried to batter down the garage door.” Id. ¶ 21.
Mr. Hardie called the police, but their arrival was delayed. Id. At some point, the individuals “regrouped in front of the house and appeared to be planning their next move” when police sirens began to wail in the distance, unrelated to Mr. Hardie's call. Id. The individuals retreated to their cars and left the property. Id. ¶¶ 22, 24. Mr. Hardie then went outside and drove to the property's front gate to wait for his wife and minor son, who were expected to return shortly. Id. ¶ 23. After they arrived, Mr. Hardie left them to wait for the police while he drove to another property he owned nearby, located at 11400 Riverview Road. Id. ¶ 36. According to the Amended Complaint, Mr. Hardie inspected the property and did not see any damage or intrusions. Id. ¶ 38.
Meanwhile, police en route to Plaintiffs' home encountered Ms. Farmer-Johnson and pulled her over, at which point she said she “‘worked for CIT Bank'” and “‘they authorized her to enter the property'” and also provided the officer “what appeared to be written instructions to break, enter and burglarize the real estate premises.” Id. ¶¶ 24-25. Ms. Farmer-Johnson admitted to entering the property, although she said the front gate had already been open, and to “stalking” the property several times earlier. Id. ¶ 25-26. “Junior officers” released Ms. Farmer-Johnson without their supervisor's permission, id. ¶ 43, but when the officers arrived at 10809 Riverview Road and saw the damage, they “admitted their mistake” and instructed Mr. Hardie to photograph the damage and complete a crime report. Id. ¶ 27.
Mr. Hardie subsequently filed a complaint with the Prince George's County Police Internal Affairs Department and, on June 26, 2017, met with “Lt. Ruben” concerning the events of May 30, 2017. Id. ¶ 28. However, as Plaintiffs state in the Amended Complaint, “[h]ere is where it gets confusing[.]” Id. ¶ 42 (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hardie was later arrested and charged with the felony committed by Ms. Farmer-Johnson and her accomplices. Id. ¶ 31. During those criminal proceedings, Ms. Farmer-Johnson admitted “on the record . . . that she was trained as an Agent of the herein Defendants, with specific instructions to bully and frighten the Hardie's out of their family home, in order to ‘make them leave and give up' so the place could be seized and occupied, with the prize of stealing everything loose and portable on the ground, to compensate her accomplices in her ‘night squad[.]'” Id. ¶ 32 (emphasis in original). She further admitted to criminally trespassing the property “upwards of twenty times” between February and May 2017. Id. ¶ 34 (emphasis in original). Mr. Hardie was eventually acquitted. Id. ¶ 31.
According to the Amended Complaint, shortly after the events of May 30, 2017, Mr. Hardie felt it was necessary to move his family out of the 10809 Riverview Road property and into the 11400 Riverview Road property. Id. ¶ 45. Soon after, however, in August 2017, he discovered that the 10809 Riverview Road property had been vandalized and ransacked. Id. All of Plaintiffs' remaining personal property had been taken, and a printed sign had been placed on a front window stating: Id. ¶ 46.
On September 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant CIT Bank, the creditor on whose behalf Ms. Farmer-Johnson and her associates were allegedly acting, and OWB REO, LLC, who won possession of the 10809 Riverview Road property on December 8, 2017, id. ¶ 11. ECF No. 1. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 30, 2020. ECF No. 8. Plaintiffs then amended their Complaint on November 4, 2020. ECF No. 9.[2] Defendants filed a second Motion to Dismiss on November 18, 2020. ECF No. 10. Plaintiffs responded to the Motion to Dismiss on December 2, 2020, ECF No. 12, and Defendants filed a reply on December 16, 2020, ECF No. 14.[3]
“A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the claims pled in a complaint.” Paradise Wire & Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Weil, 918 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 2019). To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
In evaluating the sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims, “a court ‘must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint,' and must ‘draw all reasonable inferences [from those facts] in favor of the plaintiff.'” Retfalvi v. United States, 930 F.3d 600, 605 (4th Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011)). However, the complaint must contain more than “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement[.]” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, in ruling on a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6), a court “separat[es] the legal conclusions from the factual allegations, assum[es] the truth of only the factual allegations, and then determin[es] whether those allegations allow the court to reasonably infer that ‘the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'” A Society Without a Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 346 (4th. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 566 U.S. 937 (2012) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 1949-50).
Because the burden of establishing an affirmative defense rests on the defendant, “a motion to dismiss filed under [Rule] 12(b)(6) . . . generally cannot reach the merits of an affirmative defense, such as the defense that the plaintiff's claim is time-barred.” Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007) (en banc). However, “in the relatively rare circumstances where facts sufficient to rule on an affirmative defense are alleged in the complaint, the defense may be reached by a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id.; see also Wright v. United States Postal Serv., 305 F.Supp.2d 562, 563 (D. Md. 2004) (“Statutes of limitations defenses are recognized as appropriate grounds for granting a motion to dismiss where the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.”).
Plaintiffs bring state law claims for trespass and conversion (Count I) unjust enrichment and constructive trust (Count III), slander of title (Count IV), quiet title (Count V), libel (Count VI), and a demand to present the mortgage note (Count VI). As a preliminary matter, a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction must determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial