Lane et al v. Quicken Loans Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER: Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Verified Complaint and For Injunctive Relief 19 is granted. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Verified Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to QUICKEN LOANS, INC. Plaintiffs' Motion to Drop Party Defendant 15 is denied as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 10/3/2013. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

JOSEPH D. LANE and
JENNIFER L. LANE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:13-cv-1271-T-30AEP

QUICKEN LOANS INC. and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTMES, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.'s
Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Verified Complaint and for Injunctive Relief (Dkt.
#19) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Drop Party (Dkt. #15). It is the Court’s conclusion that
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted, and Plaintiff’s motion is moot.
Background
Plaintiffs initially filed this action, pro se, seeking to quiet title to property they
own. They alleged that Quicken Loans, Inc. (“Quicken Loans”) loaned them $235,653.00
to purchase a home. In exchange, the Plaintiffs granted a mortgage on the property to
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), as nominee for Quicken Loans,
and its successors and assigns. The mortgage attached to the original complaint and the
Third Amended Verified Complaint identifies MERS as the mortgagee. Quicken Loans

asserts that it is no longer the loan servicer or investor in this mortgage as of January 20,
2010 and therefore has no legal or beneficial interest in the property at this time.
Plaintiffs’ original complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim against
Quicken Loans to quiet title against the Property. This Court gave Plaintiffs an
opportunity to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on July 23,
2013 and then, without leave of court, filed another Amended Complaint on August 2,
2013. Quicken Loans responded with another Motion to Dismiss, but prior to this Court’s
ruling on the motion, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Add Party Defendant and to
Amend Complaint along with a Motion to Drop Party Defendant Quicken Loans.
Plaintiffs asserted in their motions that they recognize that MERS may have an interest in
the property due to an assignment from Quicken Loans, and that Quicken Loans claims to
have no interest in the property. This Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Amend
the Complaint and add an additional party and denied Quicken Loans’ Motion to Dismiss
accordingly.
Plaintiff’s Third Amended Verified Complaint alleges causes of action for
“unknown holder in due course,” misrepresentation, breach of contract, Florida RICO
Act, and “mortgage securing note.” It names MERS as the defendant in both the caption
and under the section titled “Parties;” however, it also references Quicken Loans
throughout the body of the complaint.

2

Discussion
I.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all factual allegations
contained in the complaint as true, and view the facts in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). However, unlike factual
allegations, conclusions in a pleading “are not entitled to the assumption of truth.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). On the contrary, legal conclusions “must be
supported by factual allegations.” Id. Indeed, “conclusory allegations, unwarranted
factual deductions or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.”
Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003).
While a “heightened fact pleading of specifics” is not required, “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” is necessary. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a
complaint to be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
II.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendant argues that the Third Amended Verified Complaint should be dismissed
because Plaintiffs continue to seek relief against Quicken Loans even though it asserts no
legal or beneficial interest in the property. Further, it asserts that as to each count seeking
relief against Quicken Loans, Plaintiffs still fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. In addition, Quicken Loans requests injunctive relief in the form of an order

3

prohibiting plaintiffs from filing any new or amended claims against Quicken Loans
without first seeking leave of court and posting a bond.
The Third Amended Complaint mentions Quicken Loans throughout the
allegations but it is completely unclear whether the Plaintiffs are attempting to bring all
of these causes of action against Quicken Loans or MERS or both. Even assuming that
Plaintiffs are pursuing all of their claims against Quicken Loans, the various legal
theories set forth in the Complaint are legally deficient, and Plaintiffs otherwise fail to
plead facts necessary to state a cause of action against Quicken Loans under each count.
Because Plaintiffs have failed to set forth a legally cognizable claim against
Defendant Quicken Loans after having been afforded guidance from the Court and
having received three opportunities to file a complaint that complies with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff’s Third Amended Verified Complaint should be
dismissed with prejudice. The Court further concludes that the injunctive relief requested
is unwarranted at this time.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Defendant Quicken Loans Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Third Amended

Verified Complaint and For Injunctive Relief (Dkt. #19) is granted.
2.

Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Verified Complaint is hereby dismissed with

prejudice as to Quicken Loans, Inc.

4

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Drop Party Defendant (Dkt. #15) is denied as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 3rd day of October, 2013.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2013\13-cv-1271-mtd 19.docx

5