Yellen v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n

• Decision Date: 19 March 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:16–cv–02467 (TNM)
• Citation: 301 F.Supp.3d 43
• Parties: Mike YELLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

301 F.Supp.3d 43

Mike YELLEN, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:16–cv–02467 (TNM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed March 19, 2018

Mike Yellen, Pro se.

Jose R. Servida, Pro se.

James Franco, Pro se.

Edna Ardales Franco, Pro se.

Danny Castro Maggay, Pro se.

Cristita P. Maggay, Pro se.

Nathaniel Cocson, Pro se.

Isidora Cocson, Pro se.

Manuel Domingo, Pro se.

Ruth Belden, Pro se.

Rogelio Magbual, Pro se.

Zenaida Magbual, Pro se.

Jose Villon, Sr., Pro se.

Dominga Villon, Pro se.

Marcelo Villamar, Pro se.

Alma Villamar, Pro se.

Pauline Vierra, Pro se.

Manuel Corpuz, Pro se.

Pacita Corpuz, Pro se.

Edgar Allan Ramos, Pro se.

Irene Ramos, Pro se.

Charles Lauricio, Pro se.

Susie Lauricio, Pro se.

Dennis McRae, Pro se.

Melvida Balisacan, Pro se.

Cesar Caba, Pro se.

Milagros M. Crisologo, Pro se.

Lucena Maculam, Pro se.

Adrien Caulder Pickard, Andrew M. Williamson, Blank Rome LLP, Joseph Michael Katz, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Washington, DC, Joseph Jason Patry, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., Reston, VA, Ryan V.P. Dougherty, McGuire Woods LLP, Norfolk, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TREVOR N. MCFADDEN, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs, six individuals proceeding pro se , have filed an Amended Complaint against 13 defendants, which include seven corporate entities, primarily banks; "Steve Munchi, Principal Owner of Onewest Bank;" "John/Jane Does 1–100 Corporation;" "John/Jane Does 1–100 Partnerships;" "John/Jane Does 1–100 Non–Profit Entities;" and "John/Jane Does 1–100 Government Entities." Am. Compl. 1–2, ECF No. 33. The Plaintiffs allege misconduct related to mortgage loan servicing, mortgage loan origination, and bankruptcy proceedings. Id. 8–18.

All of the bank defendants have filed motions to dismiss. Upon consideration of the pleadings, relevant law, and related legal memoranda in opposition and in support, I find that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead sufficient facts to establish that this Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; and have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with respect to defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, U.S. Bank, National Association, One West Bank F.S.B., and SecurityNational Mortgage Company. Furthermore, I find that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against the remaining defendants—"RCO Hawaii, L.L.L.C. and its agent[s] Glenn Fukuhara and Brett Ryan;" "Steve Munchi, Principal Owner of Onewest Bank;" and the John/Jane Doe entities. Accordingly, the Defendants' motions will be granted, and the Amended Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs are six individuals who appear to have residential mortgages serviced by certain of the defendants, some of which may be in foreclosure. See Pls. Opp. to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Pls. Opp.") 5–6, ECF No. 55. The Plaintiffs' original complaint brought claims against numerous financial institutions and 100 John and Jane Doe entities. Compl. 1–3, ECF No. 1. After a half dozen defendants filed motions to dismiss, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. Order, ECF No. 29.

The Plaintiffs' renewed complaint dropped nearly two dozen individuals as plaintiffs and amended the named defendants in the suit.¹ The Amended Complaint alleges eight counts of action, which are described as: "unfair and deceptive consumer practices with respect to loan servicing" (Count 1), "unfair and deceptive consumer practices with respect to foreclosure processing" (Count 2), "unfair and deceptive consumer practices with respect to loan origination" (Count 3), "violations of the False Claims Act" (Count 4), "declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202" (Count 5), "damages under common law" (Count 6), failure to follow "procedures under [the] Fair Debt Collection Practices Act" (Count 7), and "unfair and deceptive business act practices" (Count 8). Each bank defendant has filed a motion to dismiss.

Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. have moved to dismiss the complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Bank of America, N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.'s Mot. to Dismiss Pls.' Am. Compl. ("BoA and Countrywide Mot. to Dismiss"), ECF No. 44.

Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company has moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 45–1.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as attorney in fact for U.S. Bank National Association and One West Bank F.S.B., has moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Attorney in Fact for U.S. Bank, N.A. and One West Bank F.S.B. ("Ocwen Mot. to Dismiss"), ECF No. 46–1.

Defendant SecurityNational Mortgage Company has moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of SecurityNational Mortgage Company's Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 52–1.

II. Legal Standard

A. Failure to Establish Personal Jurisdiction

For a defendant to be subject to suit in a particular forum, the defendant must "have sufficient minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ " Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). A defendant who lacks the sufficient contacts with the forum may move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). The plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of specific facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Reuber v. United States , 750 F.2d 1039, 1052 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In considering a motion brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the court is not required to treat as true all of the plaintiff's allegations; however, the court must resolve any factual discrepancies in establishing personal jurisdiction in favor of the plaintiff. See Crane v. New York Zoological Soc'y , 894 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

B. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted

A party may move to dismiss a complaint on the ground that it "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." This requires the complaint to contain sufficient factual allegations that, if true, "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A complaint is insufficient if it merely offers " ‘labels and conclusions’ " or " ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 546, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Rather, "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Plausibility "asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," id. , and pleading facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 545–46, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

In evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs and accept as true all reasonable factual inferences drawn from well-pled factual allegations. See In re United Mine Workers of Am. Emp. Benefit Plans Litig. , 854 F.Supp. 914, 915 (D.D.C. 1994). Further, complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). However, pro se plaintiffs must still adequately plead their complaint consistent with the edicts of Iqbal and Twombly . See Atherton v. D.C. Office of Mayor , 567 F.3d 672, 682 (D.C. Cir. 2009). This means that the Court does not accept as true legal conclusions or "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Last, "[i]n determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, [the court] may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [the court] may take judicial notice." Hurd v. District of Columbia Gov't , 864 F.3d 671, 678 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch. , 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ).

III. Analysis

A. Bank of America, N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank of America") and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") challenges the Amended Complaint for failing to plead facts to establish that they are properly subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. BoA and Countrywide Mot. to Dismiss 4–7. I agree that the Plaintiffs have not made a prima facie showing of specific facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. See Reuber , 750 F.2d at 1052.

To support a showing of personal jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs simply state in their Amended Complaint that suit is proper because "the Banks have transacted business in this District, and because the Banks have committed acts proscribed by the False Claims Act in this District." Am. Compl. ¶ 5. This single sentence is insufficient to establish that Bank of America and Countrywide should be haled...