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

Filing 28

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 17 Motion for relief from judgment; denying 21 Motion to alter or amend, for relief from judgment and to file electronically; denying 25 Motion for Leave to File electronically. See order for details. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 10/15/2014. (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 ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ amended motion to alter or amend
a judgment (Doc. 16), amended motion for relief from judgment or order (Doc. 17) and
motions to file electronically (Docs. 21 and 25) and Defendants’, Bank of America, N.A.,
as owner of Countrywide Financial Corporation and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, response to the substantive motions (Doc. 19) (hereafter
BOA).1 BOA previously file a motion to dismiss which this Court granted and judgment
was entered for all the defendants and the case was closed (Docs. 10 and 12).

BACKGROUND
In BOA’s motion to dismiss they set out the background of this case and the Court
adopted this 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
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.

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 Legal Process; and (5)
violation of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
BOA asserted that the case should be dismissed because it was barred as a compulsory
counterclaim to the underlying foreclosure action, it failed to meet the pleading
requirements of this Court, it was barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, and the
complaint was legally insufficient or fails as a matter of law. The Court adopted the
reasoning of the motion and found that the cause of action must be dismissed with
prejudice because this action was barred as it was a compulsory counterclaim to the
underlying foreclosure action and was barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
The Plaintiffs now asks this Court to consider arguments that were in their
response, which was not filed in the record until after the order was entered granting the
motion to dismiss, and they assert those arguments would have defeated the motion to
dismiss. The Court disagrees. The Court has reconsidered the matters of the motion to
dismiss along with the assertions of the Plaintiffs and still finds that this cause of action
was “barred as it is a compulsory counterclaim to the underlying foreclosure action and
was barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.” The Court cites the response of BOA as
persuasive.
Since the Court is denying the substantive motions to alter or amend or for relief
from judgment, there will not be an active case in this Court and the Plaintiffs have no
need to be allowed to file electronically. Accordingly, it

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ amended motion to alter or amend a judgment

(Doc. 16), amended motion for relief from judgment or order (Doc. 17) and motions to
file electronically (Docs. 21 and 25) be denied.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 15th day of
October, 2014.

Copies to: All
parties and counsel of record