Springer v. U.S. Bank Nat'Lass'N (In re in Real Prop. Located in Las Vegas)
| Decision Date | 23 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | 15-cv-1107(JGK) |
| Parties | RANDY SPRINGER, PLAINTIFF, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2005-HE1, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-HE1, MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2005-HE1, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-HE1, THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2005-HE1, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-HE1, MORTGAGE ASSET SECURITIZATION TRANSACTIONS, INC., ROES 1-10 AND DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE, REPRESENTING A CLASS OF UNKNOWN PERSONS WHO CLAIM OR HAVE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM AN INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA DEFENDANTS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
The plaintiff, Randy Springer ("Springer" or "plaintiff"), proceeding pro se alleges twenty causes of action against the defendants, U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), as the trustee for the MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-HE1, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series-HE1; the MASTR Trust; the certificate holders of the Trust; and various Roes and Does. The defendant U.S. Bank moved pursuant to Rules 8(a)(2), 9(b), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss with prejudice the claims asserted by the plaintiff for failure to state a claim.
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the plaintiff's federal claims under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the plaintiff's state law claims arising under Nevada and New York law. For the reasons explained below, U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court's function on a motion to dismiss is "not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient." Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir. 1985). The Court should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when theplaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While the Court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id.
When faced with a pro se complaint, the Court must "construe [the] complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest arguments that it suggests." Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Even in a pro se case, however, . . . threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citation omitted). Thus, although the Court is "obligated to draw the most favorable inferences" that the complaint supports, it "cannot invent factual allegations that [the plaintiff] has not pled." Id.; see also Bowden v. Duffy, No. 13-cv-717, 2014 WL 338786, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2014);
When presented with a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court may consider documents that are referenced in the complaint, documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in the plaintiff's possessionor that the plaintiff knew of when bringing suit, or matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Rullan v. N.Y.C. Sanitation Dep't, No. 13-cv-5154 (JGK), 2014 WL 2011771, at *1 , aff'd, 607 F. App'x 86 (2d Cir. 2015); Winfield v. Citibank, N.A., 842 F. Supp. 2d 560, 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
The following facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") are accepted as true for the purposes of the defendant's motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff's claims arise out of a mortgage loan he obtained for property located in Las Vegas, in Clark County, Nevada. Compl., Ex. 1. Springer executed a promissory note in favor of Novelle Financial Services, secured by a deed of trust for the Las Vegas property. FAC ¶ 19. The note was executed on November 24, 2004 and recorded in the Clark County Recorder's Office on January 3, 2005. FAC ¶ 40. The promissory note was assigned to U.S. Bank on April 1, 2009, under instrument number 20090408-0002148 and recorded in the Clark County's Recorder's Office on April 8, 2009. FAC ¶ 66; Compl., Ex. 2. Another assignment to U.S. Bank was executed on October 19, 2012, and recorded in the Clark County Recorder's Office on November 5,2012. FAC ¶¶ 50, 52; Compl., Ex. 3. U.S. Bank, based in Minnesota, is the trustee for the MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-HE1 ("the Trust"), a trust formed under the laws of New York. FAC ¶¶ 30-31. The Trust, a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC") holds a number of mortgages which have been securitized. FAC ¶¶ 82-83. The notes are owned by the Trust, for the benefit of the investors or certificate holders of the Trust. FAC ¶ 82.1
Springer filed a complaint in this action on February 17, 2015. On July 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed the FAC. According to the FAC, Springer contends that the defendants "fail[ed] to comply with the Prospectus for the MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-HE1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-HE1, the Promissory Note and the Deed of Trust." FAC ¶ 1.
The Trust is governed by a Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA"), and the Trustee receives payment from the entity servicing the loans in the Trust. Among other things, the servicer is tasked with processing payments and instituting foreclosure actions. FAC ¶¶ 90-91. The FAC contends that the defendants failed to deposit specific documents with the Custodian of Records to complete the assignments and transfer of the plaintiff's note and deed of trust to the Trust. FAC ¶ 94. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the requirements for securitized mortgages contained in the Trust Prospectus. FAC ¶ 96.
Although the FAC does not specify the date of Springer's default on his mortgage payments, it is clear from the allegations that Springer defaulted on the mortgage payments before the assignments took place in April 2009 and October 2012. FAC ¶ 58(e). The FAC alleges that a notice of default was filed at some unspecified time, indicating that U.S. Bank was the beneficiary of the promissory note. FAC ¶ 68. Springer contends that U.S. Bank does not hold any interest in the property by virtue of the assignments of the promissory note and deed of trust. The FAC alleges that the defendants failed to perfect their security interest in the property, and that despite this failure, the defendants and their agents "havecollected and attempted to collect on this Note and enforce the Deed of Trust with the knowledge that they have no legal right to do so." FAC ¶ 19.
Springers brings several claims seeking declaratory relief, as well as several causes of action under state and federal law: (1) one cause of action for declaratory relief to determine the status of the defendants' interest in the mortgage and deed of trust, FAC ¶¶ 116-26 (Count 1); (2) six causes of action for a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated several provisions of the Internal Revenue Code concerning Real-Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits ("REMIC"), FAC ¶¶ 127-77 (Counts 2-8); (3) one cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Trust violated regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), FAC ¶¶ 178-82 (Count 9); (4) one cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Trust violated New York Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law, FAC ¶¶ 183-86 (Count 10); (5) three causes of action seeking a declaratory judgment that the assignments violated provisions of the Trust Prospectus, FAC ¶¶ 187-98 (Counts 11-13); (6) one cause of action seeking cancellation of the instruments assigning the mortgage and deed of trust to the defendants, FAC ¶¶ 199-211 (Count 14); (7) one cause of action for fraud and deceit, FAC ¶¶ 212-16 (Count 15); one cause of action alleging violations ofNew York General Business Law § 349, FAC ¶¶ 217-25 (Count 16); one cause of action alleging violations of several provisions of the Nevada Business Code, FAC ¶¶ 226-54 (Count 17); one cause of action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, FAC ¶¶ 256-70 (Count 18); one cause of action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, FAC ¶¶ 271-90 (Count 19); and one cause of action for a declaratory judgment that the defendants' foreclosure is statutorily defective under Nevada Revised Statutes, FAC ¶¶ 291-320 (Count 20).
The crux of Springer's complaint is that the assignments of the note and the deed of trust were defective. The FAC alleges that the assignments of the note were recorded in the Clark County Recorder's Office, but the FAC contends that "notes do not move through assignments in the land records." FAC ¶ 48. According to Springer, because the note and deed were never properly assigned, the note and deed could not be deposited into the Trust. FAC ¶ 49. Springer argues that the defective assignments failed to comply with the Prospectus for the Trust. U.S. Bank moves to dismiss the FAC, arguing that Springer lacks standing to challenge the assignments and lacks...
To continue reading
Request your trial