Hylton v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 17 Civ. 9539 (PGG)
Decision Date | 19 September 2018 |
Docket Number | 17 Civ. 9539 (PGG) |
Citation | 338 F.Supp.3d 263 |
Parties | Andrea HYLTON, Plaintiff, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and Government National Mortgage Association, as trustee for Ginnie Mae Remic Trust 2010-127, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Andrea Hylton, Marlton, NJ, pro se.
Evan Maxwell Sampson, Buckley Madole, P.C., Iselin, NJ, Richard P. Haber, Buckley Madole, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants.
In this action, pro se Plaintiff Andrea Hylton challenges a mortgage foreclosure in favor of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"). Prior to the instant case, Chase brought a foreclosure action in New Jersey state court and obtained a final judgment against Plaintiff on September 7, 2017, after Plaintiff's default. Plaintiff alleges that the underlying promissory note and mortgage she signed may have been securitized and sold to Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae"), sued here as the Trustee for Ginnie Mae Remic Trust 2010-127. The Complaint asserts claims for (1) wrongful foreclosure, premised on a lack of standing; (2) fraud in the concealment; (3) fraud in the inducement; (4) unconscionable contract; (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) quiet title; (8) slander of title; and (9) declaratory relief.
Defendants have moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. As discussed below, the Court concludes that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Plaintiffs' claims for wrongful foreclosure, unconscionability, quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory relief; Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her fraud claims; res judicata bars the remaining claims against Chase; and Plaintiff does not state a claim against Ginnie Mae. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zim Am. Integrated Shipping Servs. Co. v. Sportswear Grp., LLC
...to resolve the jurisdictional issue" as well as "matters of which judicial notice may be taken." Hylton v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 338 F. Supp. 3d 263, 272-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).2 The Zim Bill of Lading defines "Merchant" as "jointly and ......
-
Limtung v. Thomas
...773 F.3d at 427; see Worthy-Pugh, 664 Fed.Appx. at 21; Babb v. Capitalsource, Inc., 588 Fed.Appx. 66, 68 (2d Cir. 2015); Hylton, 338 F.Supp.3d at 275. In other a plaintiff may “seek damages for injuries caused by a defendant's misconduct in procuring a state court judgment, but not for inju......
-
Limtung v. Thomas
...773 F.3d at 427; see Worthy-Pugh, 664 Fed.Appx. at 21; Babb v. Capitalsource, Inc., 588 Fed.Appx. 66, 68 (2d Cir. 2015); Hylton, 338 F.Supp.3d at 275. In other a plaintiff may “seek damages for injuries caused by a defendant's misconduct in procuring a state court judgment, but not for inju......
-
Kurimsky v. Resi Whole Loan IV, LLC (In re Kurimsky)
......62). pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6). The Motion to. Dismiss ... response to the Motion to Dismiss was August 17, 2021. No. response was filed by the ... 12(b)(1). Hylton v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,. 338 ......