Bedasee v. Fremont Investment & Loan Company et al

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER granting 25 Motion to dismiss; granting 38 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/27/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
OWEN
BEDASEE
BEDASEE,

and

SANDIE

Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-145-FtM-29MRM

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
HSBC
BANK
USA
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
as
Trustee
under
the
pooling
and
servicing agreement dated as
of November 1, 2005 Fremont
Home et al, DOES 1-100,
TRUSTEES 1-100, FREMONT HOME
LOAN TRUST 2005-D, and SGGH
LLC,
as
successor
in
interest
to
Fremont
Investment & Loan Company,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant SGGH, LLC’s
(“SGGH”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #25) filed on November 17, 2016
and defendants HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as trustee for
Fremont Home

Loan

Trust

2005-D,

Mortgage-Backed

Certificates,

Series 2005-D Successor in Interest to Fremont Investment & Loan
Company (“HSBC”) and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s (“Ocwen”) Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. #38) filed on December 19, 2016.
filed responses in opposition.

(Docs. ##41, 42.)

Plaintiffs

For the reasons

set forth below, defendants’ motions are granted and plaintiffs’
case is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

I.
This case involves another attempt by plaintiffs to litigate
their dissatisfaction with the underlying state court foreclosure
proceedings.

Owen and Sandie Bedasee were plaintiffs in two prior

cases against Fremont Investment & Loan Co., seeking relief under
the same general allegations that are alleged in the First Amended
Complaint.

See Bedasee v. Fremont Investment & Loan et al., 2:09-

cv-111-29SPC; 2:16-cv-576-38MRM.

Both cases were dismissed under

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine inter alia.

Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.,

263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman,

460

unsuccessfully

U.S.

462

attempted

(1983).
to

In

remove

addition,
the

plaintiffs

underlying

complaint to this Court on four prior occasions.

have

foreclosure
See Fremont

Investment & Loan Co. v. Bedasee et al., 2:16-cv-268-38MRM; 2:15cv-501-29MRM;

2:16-cv-740-38MRM;

2:17-cv-129-29MRM.

In

each

instance, the cause was remanded to state court for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction due in part to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. 1
Briefly 2, the underlying foreclosure complaint was originally
filed in Collier County Circuit Court on February 22, 2008, seeking

1

Owen and Sandie Bedasee have also attempted to remove
another foreclosure complaint filed by National City Bank to this
Court on two occasions. See National City Bank v. Bedasee et al.,
2:16-cv-555-29MRM; 2:17-cv-31-99CM. Both cases were remanded to
state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
2

The procedural history is otherwise set forth in Fremont
- 2 -

to foreclose on a $444,000 purchase money mortgage on real property
located in Naples, Florida.

(Doc. #22.)

Within four months, the

state court granted summary judgment against plaintiffs, entered
final judgment of foreclosure, and scheduled the foreclosure sale.
The sale was cancelled and rescheduled numerous times upon motion
by plaintiffs and eventually took place on June 10, 2009.

A

Certificate of Sale was filed the same day.
Since the foreclosure, plaintiffs have been challenging the
foreclosure judgment.

They appealed several times to the Florida

Second District Court of Appeal and Florida Supreme Court to no
avail.

They also filed claims and attempted removal to this Court

challenging the foreclosure.
installment

in

plaintiffs’

foreclosure judgment.
Complaint,

plaintiffs

The instant case is the latest
quest

to

defeat

the

state

court

In all fifteen counts 3 of the Amended
seek

declaratory

relief

restoring

their

rights to the Naples property and essentially undermining the
foreclosure judgment entered by the state court.

(Doc. #22.)

Investment & Loan Co. v. Bedasee et al., 2:15-cv-501-29MRM.
3

Count I: Denial of Procedural Due Process; Count II:
Misrepresentation/Fraud against the foreclosure court and against
plaintiffs; Count III: Fraudulent Inducement; Count IV: Slander of
Title; Count V: Fraudulent Conversion of Title; Count VI: Violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act; Count VII: Unjust
Enrichment; Count VIII: Set Aside Trustee’s Foreclosure Sale and
Certificate of Title; Count IX: Breach of Contract; Count X:
Negligence; Count XI: Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Count XII:
Violations of Plaintiffs’ Rights – 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Count XIII:
Denied Equal Protection Under the Law – 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Count
XIV: Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-69 (RICO); Count XV Violation
of 15 U.S.C. § 1601 (TILA). (Doc. #22.)
- 3 -

Defendants argue that the Court has no jurisdiction to relieve
plaintiffs of the underlying judgment. 4

(Docs. ##25, 38.)

II.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “places limits on the subject
matter jurisdiction of federal district courts and courts of appeal
over certain matters related to previous state court litigation.”
Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2001).

Under the

Rooker–Feldman doctrine, “federal district courts cannot review
state court final judgments because that task is reserved for state
appellate courts or, as a last resort, the United States Supreme
Court.”

Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over
“cases

brought

by

state-court

losers

complaining

of

injuries

caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court
proceedings

commenced

and

inviting

rejection of those judgments.”

district

court

review

and

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).

The doctrine extends not

only to constitutional claims presented or adjudicated by a state
court, but also to claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with

4

Defendant SGGH also asserts the Amended Complaint should be
dismissed for insufficient service of process. (Doc. #25.) In
response, plaintiffs admit that they “personally sent a package
with the original Summons, received from the Court and a copy of
Plaintiffs’ Complaint as it relates to this instant matter by means
of FEDERAL EXPRESS . . . to Mr. Armadno Arevalo[.]” (Doc. #41,
p. 15.) Thus, it appears, service has not been conducted properly
and dismissal of SGGH is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(4) and (5).
- 4 -

a state court judgment if plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity
to raise those claims in the state proceedings.

Goodman, 259 F.3d

at 1332; Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1172 (11th Cir. 2000);
Amos v. Glynn Cty. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 347 F.3d 1249, 1266 n.11
(11th Cir. 2003).

A claim is inextricably intertwined with the

state court adjudication when federal relief can only be predicted
upon a finding that the state court was wrong.

Goodman, 259 F.3d

at 1332.
III.
The claims alleged in the Amended Complaint are premised
entirely on the allegations that the foreclosure proceedings and
final

judgment

improper.

from

the

(Doc. #22.)

underlying

state

court

action

were

Plaintiffs demand equitable relief and

damages that can only be predicated upon a finding that the state
court’s

final

judgment

should

be

nullified.

Therefore,

plaintiffs’ claims are inextricably intertwined with the state
court proceeding.
Plaintiffs have been on notice that the Court lacks subjectmatter

jurisdiction

over

these

cases

attempts to litigate in federal court.

for

years

but

continue

As the Court set forth in

its prior Orders based upon the same underlying complaint for
foreclosure, the relief sought in the underlying complaint has
been granted, rejected, or otherwise concluded in the state court,
and cannot now be re-litigated or revisited in federal court.

- 5 -

See

Fremont Investment, 2:09-cv-111-29SPC (Doc. #39); 2:16-cv-26838MRM (Doc. #13); 2:15-cv-501-29MRM (Doc. #14); 2:16-cv-740-38MRM
(Doc. #8); 2:16-cv-576-38MRM (Doc. #30) 2:17-cv-129-38MRM (Doc.
#6).

Therefore, the Court finds that it continues to lack subject-

matter jurisdiction over this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Defendant SGGH, LLC’s Motion to dismiss (Doc. #25) is

GRANTED.
2.
trustee

Defendants
for

Certificates,

Fremont
Series

HSBC
Home

Bank
Loan

2005-D

USA,
Trust

Successor

National
2005-D,
in

Association,

as

Mortgage-Backed

Interest

to

Fremont

Investment & Loan Company and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. #38) is GRANTED.
3.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly,

terminate all pending motions and deadline and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of March, 2017.

Copies:
Parties of Record

- 6 -

27th

day