Fields v. Nationstar Mortgage et al

Filing 223

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. WITH PREJUDICE; AND ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT CITIBANK N.A. TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. The claims against the MERS Defendants in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which this Court previously dismissed without prejudice, are HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court DIRECTS the Clerk's Office to terminate the MERS Defendants a s parties.This Court therefore ORDERS Citibank to file either an answer to the Amended Complaint or a Rule 12 motion by February 9, 2017 MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems terminated. Sig ned by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 01/19/2017. (Citibank N.A. answer due 2/9/2017.)(Rule 12 Motion filed by 2/9/2017.) (eps, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications served by first class mail on January 20, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JANEECE FIELDS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC;
)
CHARTER CAPITAL CORPORATION; )
AURORA LOAN SERVICING LLC;
)
AURORA BANK; STRUCTURED
)
ASSETS SECURITIES
)
CORPORATION, aka SASCO;
)
CITIBANK N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR )
THE SASCO MORTGAGE PASS)
THROUGH CERTIFICATES 2005-17 )
POOL GROUP 4; LEHMAN BROTHERS )
HOLDINGS INC.; MORTGAGE
)
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
)
SYSTEMS, aka MERS; MERSCORP
)
HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOE
)
ENTITIES 1-5O,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL 15-00015 LEK-KJM

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND
MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. WITH PREJUDICE; AND ORDER DIRECTING
DEFENDANT CITIBANK N.A. TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
On September 28, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Janeece Fields
(“Plaintiff”) filed her First Amended Complaint for Fraud &
Misrepresentation (“Amended Complaint”).

[Dkt. no. 83.]

On

July 28, 2016, this Court issued its Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part MERS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 83]
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Fraud &
Misrepresentation, Filed September 28, 2015 (“7/28/16 Order”).

[Dkt. no. 174.]
In the 7/28/16 Order, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (“MERSCORP,”
collectively “MERS Defendants”).

The dismissal of the portions

of Plaintiff’s claims based on the MERS Defendants’ participation
in the securitization of Plaintiff’s loan and the MERS
Defendants’ role in the assignment of her mortgage from Defendant
Charter Capital Corporation (“Charter Capital”) to Defendant
Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) was with prejudice.1

The

dismissal of all other portions of Plaintiff’s claims against the
MERS Defendants was without prejudice.

[7/28/16 Order at 22-23.]

1

On December 10, 2015, the parties who had appeared in the
action by that time stipulated to dismiss with prejudice the
claims in the Amended Complaint against Charter Capital. [Dkt.
no. 133.] On March 9, 2016, Plaintiff and Nationstar stipulated
to dismiss with prejudice the claims in the Amended Complaint
against Nationstar. [Dkt. no. 146.]
In the April 18, 2016 Order Regarding Responses to March 10,
2016 Order to Show Cause (“4/18/16 Order”), this Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Aurora Loan Servicing LLC
(“Aurora Servicing”), Aurora Bank, Structured Assets Securities
Corporation, also known as SASCO (“SASCO”), and Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. (“Lehman Brothers”) and directed the Clerk’s Office
to terminate them as parties. [Dkt. no. 156.] On August 29,
2016, Plaintiff filed a document that this Court construed as:
1) a motion for reconsideration of the 4/18/16 as to Lehman
Brothers; and 2) a motion for leave to amend Plaintiff’s thencurrent pleading to add Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Lehman
Brothers FSB (collectively “Lehman entities”) as defendants.
[Dkt. no. 184.] This Court denied both motions in an order filed
on September 7, 2016 (“9/7/16 Order”). [Dkt. no. 186.]
2

This Court gave Plaintiff leave to file a motion seeking leave to
file a second amended complaint that: 1) cured the defects in her
claims against the MERS Defendants; and 2) reasserted her claims
against Defendant Citibank N.A., as Trustee for the SASCO
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2005-17 Pool Group 4
(“Citibank”).

[Id. at 23.]

On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave
of Court to File a Third Amended Complaint and Request for
Judicial Notice of the Court’s Own Record (“First Motion for
Leave”).

[Dkt. no. 181.]

On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a

Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (“Second Motion
for Leave”).2

[Dkt. no 204.]

The First Motion for Leave sought

leave to file a new complaint in which Plaintiff attempted to
address the defects in her claims against the MERS Defendants,
and the Second Motion for Leave sought leave to file a new
complaint adding the Lehman entities as defendants.

On

December 30, 2016, the magistrate judge issued a document that
was both his order denying the Second Motion for Leave and his
findings and recommendation that this Court deny the First Motion

2

Plaintiff presumably titled her proposed complaint in the
First Motion for Leave and the Second Motion for Leave “Third
Amended Complaint” because she previously filed a Motion for
Leave of Court to File a Second Amended Complaint, and a proposed
Verified Second Amended Complaint. [Filed 12/15/15 (dkt. nos.
135, 136).] However, that motion was terminated with a ruling on
the merits because Plaintiff reached a settlement with Charter
Capital and Nationstar.
3

for Leave.3

[Dkt. no. 220.]

There were no objections to the

12/30/16 F&R and, on January 18, 2017, this Court issued an order
adopting the 12/30/16 F&R.
I.

[Dkt. no. 221.]

MERS Defendants
Because Plaintiff’s First Motion for Leave has been

denied, there is no pending complaint against the MERS
Defendants, and Plaintiff has not cured the defects in the
Amended Complaint’s claims against the MERS Defendants that this
Court identified in the 7/28/16 Order.

This Court therefore has

the discretion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the MERS
Defendants with prejudice.

See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191

F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff’s
failure to comply with a minute order setting forth the deadline
to file the amended complaint gave the district court the
discretion to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).4
After weighing the five dismissal factors set forth in Dreith v.
Nu Image, Inc., 648 F.3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011),5 this Court

3

This Court will refer to the findings and recommendation
portion of the December 30, 2016 filing as the “12/30/16 F&R.”
4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) states, in pertinent part: “If the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a
court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any
claim against it.”
5

The Ninth Circuit has
identified five factors that a district court must
(continued...)
4

finds that the public interest in the expeditious resolution of
this litigation and this Court’s interest in managing the docket
strongly outweigh the policy favoring disposition of cases on the
merits.

Moreover, this Court finds that the remaining defendants

will not be prejudiced by the dismissal of the MERS Defendants,
and there are no less drastic alternatives available at this
time.
The claims against the MERS Defendants in Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, which this Court previously dismissed without
prejudice, are HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

This Court

DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to terminate the MERS Defendants as
parties.
II.

Citibank
The Amended Complaint named Citibank as one of the

defendants.

On July 6, 2016, Plaintiff obtained a Clerk’s Entry

of Default against Citibank.

[Dkt. no. 172.]

In August 2016,

Plaintiff filed two documents that the magistrate judge construed
collectively as a motion for default judgment against Citibank

5

(...continued)
consider before dismissing a case . . . : (1) the
public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the other
party; (4) the public policy favoring the
disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions.

Dreith, 648 F.3d at 788 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
5

(“Motion for Default Judgment”).

See dkt. no. 194 (construing

Plaintiff’s dkt. nos. 175 and 183).

On October 6, 2016, Citibank

filed a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default (“Motion to Set
Aside”).

[Dkt. no. 200.]

On November 1, 2016, the magistrate

judge issued a document that was both his order granting the
Motion to Set Aside and his findings and recommendation that this
Court deny the Motion for Default Judgment.6

[Dkt. no. 208.]

There were no objections to the 11/1/16 F&R and, on January 19,
2017, this Court issued an order adopting the 11/1/16 F&R.

[Dkt.

no. 222.]
Although the First Motion for Leave has been denied,
Plaintiff’s claims against Citibank in the Amended Complaint
remain.

In the 7/28/16 Order, this Court expressly stated that

it made no findings or conclusions regarding the merits of
Plaintiff’s claims in the Amended Complaint against Citibank.
[7/28/16 Order at 5 n.7.]

This Court also stated that

Plaintiff’s claims against Citibank were not affected by the
7/28/16 Order.

[Id. at 23.]

Apparently in light of the complex

procedural history of Plaintiff’s pleadings in this case,
Citibank neither answered the Amended Complaint nor filed a Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12 motion.
This Court therefore ORDERS Citibank to file either an

6

This Court will refer to the findings and recommendation
portion of the November 1, 2016 filing as the “11/1/16 F&R.”
6

answer to the Amended Complaint or a Rule 12 motion by
February 9, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, January 19, 2017.

/s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

JANEECE FIELDS VS. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL; CIVIL 1500015 LEK-KJM; ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND
MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC. WITH PREJUDICE; AND ORDER DIRECTING
DEFENDANT CITIBANK N.A. TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

7