Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. Government National Mortgage Association

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 18, 2018

BRYANT DELMAR WILSON; TANISHA JANEEN WILSON, Plaintiffs,
v.
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR GINNIE MAE REMIC TRUST 2009-032; CITIMORTGAGE, Inc., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CITIMORTGAGE, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS, ECF NO. 9, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

          J. Michael Seabright Chief United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiffs Bryant Delmar Wilson and Tanisha Janeen Wilson (“Plaintiffs”) have filed a multicount Complaint that appears to allege wrongful conduct regarding a mortgage loan Plaintiffs obtained on certain property in Kapolei, Hawaii (“the Property”). Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”) has moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED; Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in compliance with this decision no later than June 20, 2018.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         Plaintiffs allege that they obtained a home mortgage loan on the Property in 2009 from Home Savings of America Corporation. See Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 1. They identify Defendant CitiMortgage as the “present servicer” on the loan, although they also refer to the mortgage deed and note as having been “originated by [CitiMortgage, ]” and they assert that “Federal National Mortgage Corporation was the successor in interest to [CitiMortgage].” Id. ¶¶ 6, 12, 41. Their precise allegations regarding the loan are unclear, but they suggest that they were not qualified for the loan when they obtained it, that they attempted to modify the loan in 2011 and 2012 (and perhaps later), and that they were not properly notified when the loan was purchased on one or more occasions. Id. ¶¶ 16, 38-39. They also allege that they were “forced, tricked, and mislead [(sic)]into parting with their property.” Id. ¶ 77. Reading between the lines of the Complaint, the court surmises that the Property may have been or may now be the subject of a foreclosure action. But the Complaint includes no details about any such proceedings.[1]

         The bulk of Plaintiffs' factual allegations are simply indecipherable. They appear to be mostly lengthy excerpts from an unattached “forensic audit . . . performed on the property.” Id. ¶ 12. The author of this “audit” apparently opined that he found “indicia of deception and fraud” and a cloud on “the chain of title on the . . . mortgage deed” caused by CitiMortgage's use of “deception and fraudulent assignments to conceal the transfer history and identities of hidden investors.” Id.; see also id. ¶¶ 12-41. The final numbered paragraph of the “general allegations” comprises approximately eight pages of what appear to be merely quotations from decisions in unrelated court cases involving unrelated parties. Id. ¶ 42.

         B. Procedural Background

         Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on February 2, 2018. ECF No. 1. They allege eleven counts labeled as follows: (1) “Lack of Standing/Wrongful Attempt to Foreclosure, ” (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, ” (9) “Declaratory Relief, ” (10) “CCPA, ” and (11) “Violation of Federal Regulations, Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41 (b)(2)(i)(A).” ECF No. 1 (emphasis omitted). Defendant CitiMortgage filed its Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2018, ECF No. 9, and this court set a due date of April 15, 2018 for Plaintiffs' Opposition.[2] ECF No. 8.

         When no Opposition was filed by that date, this court ordered Plaintiffs to file a written response by May 3, 2018, stating whether they intended to oppose the Motion to Dismiss and if so, why they failed to meet the April 15, 2018 deadline. ECF No. 16. No such response or Opposition was filed before the hearing, but the court accepted Plaintiffs' written Opposition submitted and filed at the hearing. ECF No. 19.

         A hearing was held on May 8, 2018.

         III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

         A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a motion to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper when there is either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged.” UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC, 718 F.3d 1006, 1014 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)).

         “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Weber v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008). This tenet - that the court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint - “is inapplicable to legal conclusions, ” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Factual allegations that only permit the court to infer “the mere possibility of misconduct” do not show that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 679.

         The court liberally construes pro se pleadings. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). “Unless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint's deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995).

         B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

         Dismissal may also be warranted for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Rule 8 mandates that a complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Further, it requires that “each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). A complaint that is so confusing that its “‘true substance, if any, is well disguised'” may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8. Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1969)).

         C. Federal Rule of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.