Kumar v. Chase et al

Filing 55

ORDER granting 12 motion to dismiss; granting 20 motion to dismiss; granting 23 motion to dismiss and this cause of action is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to terminate any pending motions. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 5/8/2013. (SN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

RAVI KUMAR,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CASE NO. 8:12-CIV-2898-EAK-AEP

CHASE as Trustee for JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
This cause is before the Court on Defendant, GMAC Mortgage, LLC’s, motion to
dismiss (Doc. 23); Defendants, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. for itself and as Trustee for
JPMorgan Chase Bank, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s, motion to dismiss
or for a more definite statements (Doc. 12 and 22); and Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s,
motion to dismiss (Doc. 20). Despite the Court giving the Plaintiff an opportunity to file
appropriate responses to the motions to dismiss at Document 12, 23, and 22, the Plaintiff has
failed to file any response. The Plaintiff did file a response to the motion at Document 20.
Having reviewed the pending motions, the single response, and the file in this case, the Court
finds that the motions to dismiss should be granted and it chooses to abstain under the Colorado
River abstention doctrine. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S.
800 (1976).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a plaintiff’s complaint set out a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “While a complaint attacked by
a Rule 12(b)6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s
obligation to provide grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Therefore, to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s complaint “must
now contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). In considering a motion to dismiss under this plausibility standard,
courts follow a two-pronged approach. First, a court must “eliminate any allegations in [a]
complaint that are merely legal conclusions.” Id. at 1290 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1950 (2009)). Then, a court must take any remaining well-pleaded factual allegations,
“assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief.” Id. (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In sum, Rule 8’s
pleading standard “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

DISCUSSION

2

The Plaintiff filed his complaint seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and quiet
title relief as to the moving parties as well as Bank of America and Does 4-10. The action stems
from a foreclosure action as to property in the Plaintiff’s possession and the claims of the
Plaintiff that these defendants do not have authority to foreclose upon the property.1 This case is
similar to the case of Hendricks v Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 25,2013 WL
1279035 (M.D. Fla. March 28, 2013) and like the court in Hendricks this Court finds that
abstention is appropriate. The Court cites with approval the arguments of the defendants in their
motions to dismiss and adopts the reasoning as urged by the Defendants and as supported by the
Hendricks order. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motions to dismiss (Docs. 12, 20, 22, and 23) be granted and this
cause of action is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to terminate
any pending motions.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 8th day of May, 2013.

1

The Court takes notice that the state foreclosure action was filed on October 5, 2011,
more than fourteen motions before this instant action was filed.
3

Copies to: All parties and counsel of record

4