Pope v. Aegis Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting defendants U.S. Bank NA, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, BlackRock Financial Management Inc., and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's 5 motion to dismiss. The complaint is dismissed against these defendants with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING the complaint against defendant Aegis Wholesale Corp. without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 11/17/11. (ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Aegis Wholesale Corp.; U.S. Bank NA,)
solely as trustee for the Certificate Holders)
of Maiden Lane Trust, Asset-Backed)
Securities 1, Series 2007; Nationstar)
Mortgage LLC; BlackRock Financial)
Management Inc.; Federal Reserve Bank)
)
of New York,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Dena Pope,

CV 11-02050-PHX-FJM
ORDER

18
19

The court has before it defendants U.S. Bank, Nationstar Mortgage, BlackRock

20

Financial Management, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's ("the Nationstar

21

defendants") motion to dismiss (doc. 5). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, and the time

22

for filing a response has expired. Defendant Aegis Wholesale ("Aegis") did not join in the

23

motion to dismiss and has not appeared in any proceedings before this court.

24

Plaintiff's forty-five page complaint is densely-worded and appears to contain few

25

concrete facts. It alleges that plaintiff executed a Deed of Trust in 2007 for her residence in

26

the amount of $419,000. Aegis was listed as the lender. Her loan was securitized in 2008.

27

A Notice of Trustee's Sale for plaintiff's property was issued June 9, 2011, setting the sale

28

for September 12, 2011. The sale has not been held.

1

This action was originally filed in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County

2

on September 9, 2011 (doc. 1, ex. A). The complaint asserts twelve "counts," which contain

3

multiple legal theories. For example, count eight is styled

4
5
6

[b]reach of Contract - Failure of the original lender to Transfer or to Assign
respectively either the Note or the Deed of Trust to US Bank National
Association as Trustee for the Investors in the Mortgage Backed Security and
the Defendants’ lack of authority to vary the terms of Plaintiff’s loan by
agreement as a result of the securitization of the loan and the involvement of
MERS in this series of transactions

7
Compl. at 34. In essence, plaintiff complains that U.S. Bank has not proved that it possessed
8
the note on plaintiff's property at the time that the trustee's sale was noticed. Plaintiff
9
concludes that U.S. Bank cannot enforce the note and cannot proceed with a trustee's sale on
10
her property. The Nationstar defendants timely removed to this court and filed the instant
11
motion.
12
The Nationstar defendants argue that plaintiff's complaint violates Rule 8(a)(2), Fed.
13
R. Civ. P., because it fails to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
14
the pleader is entitled to relief." Defendants argue that plaintiff's forty-five page complaint
15
"consists almost entirely of confusing legal conclusions and convoluted theories about the
16
manner in which foreclosure sales should be conducted, each of which is contrary to the
17
settled law of this state." Mot. to Dismiss at 4. Because plaintiff failed to respond to the
18
motion to dismiss, we grant it summarily. See LRCiv 7.2(i) ("if. . . counsel does not serve
19
and file the required answering memoranda. . . such non-compliance may be deemed a
20
consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion
21
summarily"). We agree with defendants that the lengthy and confusing complaint violates
22
Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
23
Defendants argue that based on their interpretation of plaintiff's claims, the complaint
24
should be dismissed with prejudice as amendment would be futile. Given the prolixity of the
25
complaint and plaintiff's silence, it is difficult to tell whether amendment could cure any of
26
plaintiff's claims. However, given plaintiff's failure to respond, we grant the Nationstar
27
defendants' motion to dismiss her complaint with prejudice.
28
-2-

1

Aegis has not yet appeared.

It is unclear whether Aegis has been served.

2

Nevertheless, our conclusion that the complaint violates Rule 8(a) renders the legal result as

3

to this defendant the same. See Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742-43

4

(9th Cir. 2008). However, we dismiss the complaint against Aegis without prejudice.

5

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants U.S. Bank NA, Nationstar Mortgage

6

LLC, BlackRock Financial Management Inc., and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's

7

motion to dismiss (doc. 5). The complaint is dismissed against these defendants with

8

prejudice.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING the complaint against defendant Aegis
Wholesale Corp. without prejudice.

11

The Clerk shall enter judgment.

12

DATED this 17th day of November, 2011.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-