Bennett v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al
ORDER ADOPTING as the opinion of this Court 18 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as fully set out in this Order. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 9/8/2015. (mcb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LORENZO BENNETT, SR.,
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al.,
After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those
portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated August 17, 2015, is ADOPTED as the
opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. It is ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion is GRANTED as to the following
Bennett’s negligence and wantonness claims against Nationstar and BONYM (Count One).
Bennett’s negligent misrepresentation claims (to the extent they are asserted separately and
apart from Bennett’s negligence claims) against Nationstar and BONYM (Count One).
Bennett’s claim for breach of contractual obligations of good faith and fair dealing against
Nationstar and BONYM (Count Three).
Bennett’s claims for violations of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41 and § 1024.35 against BONYM
(Counts Five and Six).
Bennett’s claims for statutory damages against Nationstar and BONYM based on an alleged
“pattern or practice” of RESPA violations (Counts Five and Six).
Bennett’s claim for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 10, at 37-39).
The Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Doc. 18) is DENIED as to Bennett’s breach of contract
(Count Three), FDCPA (Count Four), and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief claims, and
Bennett is ORDERED sua sponte to replead Counts Three and Four not later than September 22,
2015. Plaintiff shall adhere to the following standards in repleading his complaint:
1. Bennett shall omit mention of any claim that is dismissed by the Court’s Order addressing
the Report and Recommendation.
2. In filing an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must not file another shotgun complaint.
Bennett shall refrain from incorporating multiple causes of action into one count, as well as from the
wholesale adoption by reference of all allegations in the Amended Complaint into each cause of
action. Instead, he must list each discrete cause of action (e.g., breach of contract or FDCPA
violations) in a separate count and identify with specificity the factual allegations used to support
each discrete claim against each individual Defendant.
3. In being ordered to replead under Rule 12(e), Bennett is not being granted leave to amend
his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Thus, he shall not use this as an
opportunity to add new claims and/or parties which are not apparent from the allegations in his
Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). Cf. Washington v. Util. Trailer Mfg. Co., No. 1:13–CV–610–WEF,
2014 WL 2831189, at *5 n.5 (M.D. Ala. June 23, 2014) (“Plaintiffs may not use this order to replead Count I as an opportunity to add new claims.”).
DONE and ORDERED this the 8th day of September 2015.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?