Moreno et al v. Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB et al
Filing
23
ORDER granting 9 Motion to dismiss; denying as moot 11 Motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 12/20/2012. (VMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DAVID ROLON MORENO; HIRIAM D.
ROLON; and KENIA ROLON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Case No. 6:12-cv-1199-Orl-37DAB
LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK, FSB;
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS,
INC.; STRUCTURED ASSET
SECURITIES CORPORATION;
LEHMAN XS TRST 2007-10H;
LASALLE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.; AURORA LOAN
SERVICES, INC.; ALL PERSONS
CLAIMING BY, THROUGH, OR UNDER
SUCH PERSO; ALL PERSONS
UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL
OR EQUITABLE TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN,
OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT
ADVERSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE
THERETO; and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1.
Defendants Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB and Aurora Loan Services LLC’s
Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 6), filed September 5, 2012;
2.
Defendant Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9),
filed September 11, 2012;
3.
Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and, in the Alternative, Motion for a More
Definite Statement of Claims (Doc. 11), filed September 18, 2012;
4.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB and
Aurora Loan Services LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 13), filed
September 25, 2012; and
5.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and, in the
Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement of Claims (Doc. 16), filed
September 28, 2012.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, appearing pro se, bring claims against numerous named and Doe
Defendants relating to the securitization and enforceability of a mortgage on a property
in Kissimmee, Florida. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that the original mortgage lender and
subsequent holders of the note improperly assigned or sold the mortgage note and, as
such, the mortgage is no longer enforceable. (Id. ¶¶ 21–24.) Plaintiffs further contend
that the sale of the note itself from the original mortgage lender to subsequent holders
renders the note invalid and unenforceable. (Id. ¶¶ 25–26.) Based on these allegations,
Plaintiffs bring a claim of wrongful foreclosure in Count I, a claim of fraud in Count II, a
quiet title claim in Count III, a breach of contract claim in Count IV,1 a claim for violations
of the Real Estate and Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.,
in Count V, and a claim for violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) in Count VI.
1
Plaintiffs’ fourth count is labeled “Declaratory Relief”. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et
seq. (the Declaratory Judgment Act), however, does not provide a cause of action or
theory of recovery. Plaintiffs must still provide a substantive basis for their claim. Here,
the Court construes the claim as one for breach of contract.
2
(Id. ¶¶ 56–112.)
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim for which
relief can be granted.
STANDARDS
“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). The federal rules do not require “detailed factual allegations,” but a “pleading
that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “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.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570); see also Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 708-09 (11th Cir. 2010) (“After Iqbal it is
clear that there is no ‘heightened pleading standard’ as it relates to cases governed by
Rule 8(a)(2), including civil rights complaints.”).
In considering a motion to dismiss brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), a court limits its “consideration to the well-pleaded factual allegations,
documents central to or referenced in the complaint, and matters judicially noticed.” La
Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
The facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true and construed in the light
most favorable to the non-movant. Castro v. Sec’y of Homeland Sec., 472 F.3d 1334,
1336 (11th Cir. 2006). Dismissal is warranted if, assuming the truth of the factual
allegations of the plaintiffs’ complaint, there is a dispositive legal issue which precludes
relief. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989); see also La Grasta v. First Union
3
Securities, Inc., 358 F.3d 840, 845–46 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is appropriate “if it is apparent from the face
of the complaint that the claim is time-barred”).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs assert two federal claims in their complaint, which form the basis for this
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Defendant Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. contends that both of Plaintiff’s federal claims are time-barred and
therefore must be dismissed.
With regard to the RESPA claim, the relevant statute of limitations for the
violations alleged in the complaint is one year. 12 U.S.C. § 2614. TILA also provides a
one-year statute of limitations for violations of its provisions. 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e).
Plaintiffs’ entered into the mortgage contract that is the subject of their claims in April
2007 (Doc. 9, Ex. A),2 and any claim under RESPA or TILA would have arisen at the
time of closing. Thus, Plaintiffs’ RESPA and TILA claims would have been time-barred
as of April 2008. This lawsuit was not commenced until August 2012. As such, Plaintiffs’
RESPA and TILA claims are time-barred and are due to be dismissed with prejudice.
With regard to Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims, the Court notes that its
subject matter jurisdiction over this action is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, i.e.,
federal question jurisdiction.3 Because the Court finds that all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims
2
The loan and mortgage contract is integral to the complaint and Plaintiffs’
claims. As such, the contract is properly considered on a motion to dismiss. See Brooks
v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that
“where the plaintiff refers to certain documents in the complaint and those documents
are central to the plaintiff’s claim, then the Court may consider the documents part of
the pleadings for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal”).
3
The complaint does not adequately allege diversity jurisdiction, nor does it
provide an alternative basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
4
are due to be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); L.A. Draper & Son v.
Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc., 735 F.2d 414, 428 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding “if the federal
claims are dismissed prior to trial, Gibbs strongly encourages or even requires dismissal
of the state law claims”). Such claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1.
Defendant Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Docs. 9)
is GRANTED. Count V and Count VI of the Complaint are DISMISSED
WITH
PREJUDICE.
Plaintiffs
remaining
claims
are
DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2.
Defendants Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB and Aurora Loan Services LLC’s
Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 6) and Defendant Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and, in
the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement of Claims (Doc. 11)
are DENIED AS MOOT.
3.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on December 20, 2012.
Copies:
5
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties
6
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?