Cunningham v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM ORDER - The amended complaint is dismissed as frivolous; ORDER denying as moot 10 MOTION to Strike Discovery Requests and Stay Discovery; denying as moot 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying as moot MOTION to Dismiss Case as Frivolous filed by JP Morgan Chase Bank; denying as moot 8 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter, MOTION to Dismiss for Insufficiency of Process, MOTION to Dismiss for Insufficiency of Service of Process, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and MOTION to Stay filed by JP Morgan Chase Bank (copy to pltf.) (CASE CLOSED). Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 7/1/13. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff,

v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,
Defendant.

)

)

)

)

) Civ. No. 13-756-SLR
)
)
)

)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington this \"...day of July, 2013, having screened the case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);
IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the amended complaint is dismissed as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and pursuant to the Younger abstention
doctrine; (2) all pending motions (0.1. 8, 10) are denied as moot; and (3) the Clerk of
Court is directed to close the case, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The court previously screened the complaint, dismissed it,
and gave plaintiff leave to amend. (See 0.1. 7) He filed an amended complaint on
June 14, 2013. (0.1. 11) The court has jurisdiction by reason of diversity of the parties
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. Standard of review. This court must dismiss, at the earliest practicable time,
certain in forma pauperis actions that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). The court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and

take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of

Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007). 8ecause plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his
complaint, "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations
omitted).
3. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915{e)(2)(8)(i), a
court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario.

Neitzke, 490 at 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772,774 (3d Cir. 1989); see, e.g.,
Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1091-92 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding frivolous a suit
alleging that prison officials took an inmate's pen and refused to give it back).
4. The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to § 1915(e){2)(8)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on
Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Tourscherv. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236,240 (3d Cir. 1999)
(applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 12{b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under

§ 1915(e)(2)(8)). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915, the court must grant plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless
amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293
F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).

2

5. A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007). The assumption of truth is inapplicable to legal conclusions or to
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere
conclusory statements." Id. at 1949. When determining whether dismissal is
appropriate, the court conducts a two-part analysis. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578
F.3d 203,210 (3d Cir. 2009). First, the factual and legal elements of a claim are
separated. Id. The court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true,
but may disregard any legal conclusions. Id. at 210-11. Second, the court must
determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that plaintiff
has a "plausible claim for relief."1 Id. at 211. In other words, the complaint must do
more than allege plaintiff's entitlement to relief; rather it must "show" such an
entitlement with its facts. Id. "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to
infer more than a mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has
not shown - that the pleader is entitled to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2».
6. Discussion. Plaintiff attempts to raise claims related to the foreclosure of
real property located in Newark, Delaware. The recently filed amended complaint is a
combination of discovery requests and allegations. Plaintiff is the executor of the estate
1A claim is facially plausible when its factual content allows the court to draw a
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The plausibility standard "asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. "Where a
complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops
short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.'" Id.

3

of his father, Joseph Cunningham, Sr. The property at issue was owned by the
decedent. The decedent received a loan from Weichert Financial and the loan was
sold or transferred to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. Plaintiff alleges that the loan was paid
and that J.P. Moran Chase Bank is hiding the satisfaction of the loan from the heirs of
the decedent. Plaintiff alleges that financial institutions committed fraud and abuse and
took advantage of his father's investment. Plaintiff seeks return of the real property and
one million dollars in damages.
7. Fraud. At common law, fraud (or deceit) consists of: (1) a false
representation, usually one of fact, made by the defendant; (2) the defendant's
knowledge or belief that the representation was false, or was made with reckless
indifference to the truth; (3) an intent to induce the plaintiff to act or to refrain from
acting; (4) the plaintiffs action or inaction taken in justifiable reliance upon the
representation; and (5) damage to the plaintiff as a result of such reliance. Stephenson
v. Capano Develop., Inc., 462 A.2d 1069,1974 (Del. 1983). The amended complaint
alleges fraud in a conclusory manner, without supporting facts and fails to meet the
pleading requirements of Iqbal. Nor does the amended complaint meet the
requirements for pleading fraud pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) which requires that a
plaintiff alleging fraud must state the circumstances of the alleged fraud with sufficient
particularity to place the defendant on notice of the "precise misconduct with which [it is]
charged." See Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188,200 (3d Cir. 2007). Even given
the latitude accorded pro se pleadings, the filing is seriously deficient and is frivolous.

4

8. Abstention. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same
day that the court screened the original order.2 Therein, defendant indicates that, on
November 26, 2012, it initiated a foreclosure action for the real property in question in
the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, JP Morgan Chase Bank, National
Association v. Cunningham, C.A. No. N12L-11-093 JRJ. (0.1. 9, Wiggins aff.

~

10, ex.

H) Plaintiff is participating in the action on behalf of his father's estate. (Id. at ~ 11, ex.
I) It appears that the action remains pending.
9. Under the Younger abstention doctrine, a federal district court must abstain
from hearing a federal case which interferes with certain state proceedings. 3 See
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). In addition, under Younger, federal courts are
prevented from enjoining pending state proceedings absent extraordinary
circumstances. 4 Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S.
423,437 (1982). Abstention is appropriate when: (1) there are ongoing state
proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important
state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise
the federal claims. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 670 (3d Cir. 2010). The
doctrine applies to proceedings until all appellate remedies have been exhausted,

2The motion is moot, given that the court dismissed the complaint on May 30,
2013. (See 0.1. 7)
3The court may raise the issue of Younger abstention sua sponte. O'Neill v. City
of Philadelphia, 32 F.3d785, n.1 (3d Cir. 1994).
4The abstention doctrine as defined in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),
provides that federal courts are not to interfere with pending state criminal proceedings.
The Younger doctrine has been extended to civil cases and state administrative
proceedings. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423
(1982); Huffman v. Pursue Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975).

5

unless the matter falls within one of the Youngerexceptions. 5 Huffman v. Pursue Ltd.,
420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975).
10. The Younger elements have been met and none of the its exceptions apply.
There are on-going state proceedings for the foreclosure of real property. Delaware has
an important interest in resolving real estate issues, and a ruling in the Delaware courts
implicates the important interest of preserving the authority of the state's judicial
system. See e.g., Almazan v. 1st 2nd Mortg. CO. of NJ, Inc., 2011 WL 2670871 (D.N.J.
June 2, 2011) (finding that the State has important interests in the foreclosure of
property under the Younger doctrine); Greg v. Pagano, 287 F. App'x 155 (3d Cir. 2008)
(unpublished) (court abstained under the Younger doctrine where plaintiffs sought a
declaration that the judge was not authorized to nUllify transfer of title and for an order
enjoining the sheriff from conducting a sheriffs sale.). Finally, plaintiff has an adequate
opportunity to raise any potential fraud claims in State court. Accordingly, pursuant to
Younger and its progeny, the court must abstain. See Pennzoi! Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481

U.S. 1, 15 ( 1987) (stating that Younger abstention is favored even after the plaintiffs
failed to raise their federal claims in the ongoing state proceedings).
11. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8)(i) and by reason of abstention. Plaintiff was

5Exceptions to the Younger doctrine exist where irreparable injury is "both great
and immediate," Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, where the state law is "'flagrantly and patently
violative of express constitutional prohibitions," id. at 53, or where there is a showing of
"bad faith, harassment, or ... other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable
relief." Id. at 54.

6

provided an opportunity to correct his pleading deficiencies, to no avail. The court finds
further amendment futile. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

UNITED STATDISTRiCT JUDGE

7