Reed v. U.S. Bank National Association et al

Filing 22

ORDER: The Amended Complaint (Doc. # 18 ) is DISMISSED with leave to amend by August 17, 2017. If Reed fails to file a second amended complaint by that date, the case will be dismissed without further notice. Additionally, the Court extends the service deadline to September 5, 2017, so that Reed will have sufficient time to serve the second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/17/2017. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PATRICIA REED,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-1051-T-33AEP

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon sua sponte review
of pro se Plaintiff Patricia Reed’s Amended Complaint, filed
on July 11, 2017. (Doc. # 18). For the reasons that follow,
the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint with leave to amend
by August 17, 2017, and extends the service deadline to
September 5, 2017.
I.

Discussion
Reed initiated this action on May 5, 2017, against

Defendants

U.S.

Bank

National

Association,

Ocwen

Loan

Servicing, LLC, Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems,
Inc. (MERS), American Brokers Conduit, and “Does 1 through 10
inclusive.” (Doc. # 1). Because the Complaint failed to allege

1

a basis for the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction, the
Court dismissed the Complaint

with leave to amend in a

detailed Order on May 11, 2017. (Doc. # 11). In that Order,
the Court explained the importance of sufficiently pleading
a basis for this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction and clearly
identifying Reed’s causes of action and their legal bases.
(Id.).
Subsequently, Reed filed her Amended Complaint on July
11, 2017. (Doc. # 18). Reed argues her mortgage is voidable,
the Defendant companies “do not have a lawful ownership or a
security interest in [her] home,” and thus the foreclosure of
her home and her eviction were wrongful. (Id. at ¶¶ 13, 32).
The

Amended

Complaint

suffers

from

many

of

the

Complaint’s flaws. The Court is still unable to clearly
determine

Reed’s

theory

for

this

Court’s

exercise

of

jurisdiction. For example, Reed states she “wishes to invoke
this Honorable Court’s federal question jurisdiction as [she]
is

bringing

claims

directly

under

Federal

Statu[t]e

and

constitution provision as [her] state claims turn on a matter
of Federal law.” (Id. at ¶ 22). It is clear Reed is invoking
federal

question

jurisdiction,

rather

than

diversity

jurisdiction. But the Court does not know whether she is
arguing that federal question jurisdiction exists (1) because
2

some of her claims arise directly under federal law or the
constitution

while

her

state

law

claims

also

raise

substantial questions of federal law or (2) all her claims
are state law claims that raise substantial questions of
federal law. The Court notes that Reed does not explicitly
identify

the

substantial

questions

of

federal

law

she

believes her state claims raise.
Additionally, the Court is unable to determine exactly
what causes of action Reed is bringing, and the legal basis
for those claims. For example, Reed’s fifth cause of action
is inscrutable. It reads:
Defendants have from the onset Plaintiffs have
acted wrongfully with knowledge, it would be absurd
that Defendants would not know they brought a
wrongful prosecution of the foreclosure complaint,
have compounded their acts with a illegal eviction.
Thereby, leaving Plaintiff homeless and retendered
loss of individual independency regarding the
constitutional right to defend Plaintiff’s real
property and denying Plaintiff the right pursue
individual freedom and happiness.
(Doc. # 18 at 41). The Court is unsure of what claim this
fifth cause of action is raising. Is it a state claim for
wrongful foreclosure? For illegal eviction? Or is it a claim
that

the

various

mortgage

servicers

violated

her

constitutional rights? If so, what constitutional rights and
how did the Defendants violate them?

3

If Reed files a second amended complaint, she should
only include one claim for relief under each cause of action.
She should clearly identify or label what that claim is and
its

legal

basis

—

for

example,

wrongful

foreclosure

or

intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Finally, the sixth cause of action is labelled as a
stand-alone claim for “Damages.” (Doc. # 18 at 41). But a
request for damages arising from her other claims is not a
separate cause of action. If Reed is seeking damages for her
claims, she should list that requested relief under each cause
of action for which she is seeking damages.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend
by August 17, 2017. If Reed fails to file a second amended
complaint by that date, the case will be dismissed without
further notice. Additionally, the Court extends the service
deadline

to

September

5,

2017,

so

that

Reed

will

have

sufficient time to serve the second amended complaint.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
17th day of July, 2017.

4

5