Flamberg v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 8 Motion to Stay. The Clerk shall close this case. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 09/14/12. (sk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ANNA M. FLAMBERG,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12-CV-00200-RWS

ORDER
This case is before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [7] and Motion to Stay Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines [8]. After
reviewing the record, the Court enters the following Order.
In April 2007, Plaintiff obtained a loan from SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
(“SunTrust”) or (“Defendant”). In order to secure repayment of the loan,
Plaintiff executed a security deed conveying the property to Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), as nominee for SunTrust.
Thereafter, MERS granted, sold, assigned, transferred, and conveyed all of its
right, title, and interest in the security deed to SunTrust, as evidenced by an
assignment recorded in the deed records of Jackson County, Georgia. A second
assignment from MERS to SunTrust was recorded on June 5, 2012.

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Plaintiff defaulted on her obligations owed under the loan and security
deed, and by reason of that default, the loan was accelerated and non-judicial
foreclosure proceedings were initiated against the property. The property was
foreclosed on July 3, 2012. On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the
present action. Though difficult to decipher, Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to
assert a wrongful foreclosure claim against Defendant and seeks a declaratory
judgment regarding the ownership rights and responsibilities of the parties
respecting the subject property. The case is presently before the Court for
consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
When considering a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, a federal court is to accept as true “all facts set forth in the plaintiff’s
complaint.” Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir.
2000) (citation omitted). Further, the court must draw all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187
F.3d 1271, 1273 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007) (internal citations omitted). However, “[a] pleading

2

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not do.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Id.
The United States Supreme Court has dispensed with the rule that a
complaint may only be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when “‘it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.’” Twombly, 127 U.S. at 561(quoting Conley
v.Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). The Supreme Court has replaced that
rule with the “plausibility standard,” which requires that factual allegations
“raise the right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 556. The plausibility
standard “does not[, however,] impose a probability requirement at the pleading
stage; it simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence [supporting the claim].” Id.
Plaintiff failed to file a response to Defendant’s Motion. However, the
Court has considered the merits of the Motion and finds that the Complaint fails
to set forth facts which could plausibly support a cause of action against

3

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Defendant. The Complaint is composed primarily of unsupported conclusory
statements and inapplicable and/or incorrect statements of the law. Therefore,
the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege a cause of action
against Defendant. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [7]
is hereby GRANTED. In light of that ruling, Defendant’s Motion to Stay
Discovery and Pretrial Deadlines [8] is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall
close the case.
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of September, 2012.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)