Valentine et al v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 6 motion to dismiss and the Clerk of Court isdirected to enter judgment for the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs and to close this cause of action. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 5/7/2014. (SN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

ANTHONY VALENTINE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO. 8:14-CIV-652-EAK-MAP

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING,
LP, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause is before the Court on Defendants’, Bank of America, N.A., as owner of
Countrywide Financial Corporation and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and BAC Home Loans
Servicing LP, motion to dismiss (Doc. 6).1 Despite the Court giving the Plaintiffs an extension
of time to file an appropriate response to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs have failed to file a
response.
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).

1

The other two named defendants have not appeared in this case yet but the Court finds
that the ruling is applicable to them also.

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).
BACKGROUND
The Defendants motion to dismiss sets out the background of this case and the Court
adopts the recitation:
On January 2, 2007, Plaintiffs obtained a mortgage from Market Street Mortgage
Corporation (“Market Street”) for $271,600.00. Plaintiffs failed to comply with the terms
of their mortgage, and accordingly, on or about October 16, 2007, Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”), the servicer of the loan, initiated a foreclosure action
against Plaintiffs in the Hernando County Circuit Court, Case No.: H27CA2007002114
(the “Foreclosure Action”). See Compl., Par. 6; Exhibit C.
On December 17, 2008, a final judgment of foreclosure was entered in Countrywide’s
favor in the Foreclosure Action. See Compl., Par. 7. In the instant action, Plaintiffs argue
that this final judgment was improper as it was obtained through a forged assignment of
mortgage. Based upon these allegations, Plaintiffs have brought forth the following
causes of action: (1) Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUPTA); (2) violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”)
and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”); (3) Civil Conspiracy; (4) Abuse of
2

Legal Process; and (5) violation of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).
ARGUMENT
The Defendants assert that the case should be dismissed because it is barred as a
compulsory counterclaim to the underlying foreclosure action, it fails to meet the pleading
requirements of this Court, it is barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and the complaint is
legally insufficient or fails as a matter of law. The Court finds that the motion to dismiss welltaken and cites it with approval herein. The Court adopts the reasoning of the motion and finds
that the cause of action must be dismissed with prejudice because this action is barred as it is a
compulsory counterclaim to the underlying foreclosure action and is barred by the RookerFeldman Doctrine. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) be granted and the Clerk of Court is
directed to enter judgment for the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs and to close this cause of
action.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 7th day of May, 2014.

3

Copies to: All parties and counsel of record

4