Midfirst Bank v. Craige et al

Filing 44

ORDER & REASONS that Counter Defendant Midfirst Bank's 43 Motion to Dismiss against the Citi Entities is hereby GRANTED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 9/8/2017. (cms) (cc: Kristian R. Craige, Sr.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MIDFIRST BANK

*
*
*
*
*
*

versus
KRISTIAN CRAIGE, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

No. 16-3941
SECTION “L” (5)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Counter Defendant Midfirst Bank’s Motion to Dismiss. R. Doc. 43.
Third Party Plaintiff Craige did not respond to the motion. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs
and the applicable law, the Court now issues this Order & Reasons.
I.

BACKGROUND
This tort case involves a dispute arising out of a promissory note executed by Kristian

Craige, dated June 16, 2003, regarding an Act of Mortgage executed on the same date. R. Doc.
1-1 at 1. The note was executed in favor of New Freedom Mortgage Corporation in the principal
amount $73,369.00 and stipulating 6% interest per annum on the unpaid balance. R. Doc. 1-1 at
1. While the viability of the transfers is disputed, the record indicates that New Freedom
Mortgage endorsed the mortgage note to Citimortgage, Inc., and Citimortgage, Inc. in turn
endorsed the note to Midfirst Bank. R. Doc. 1-1 at 2. On December 17, 2014, Midfirst Bank
instituted foreclosure proceedings in state court to collect on the unpaid principal on the note,
$65,795.39. R. Doc. 1-1 at 3.
On March 15, 2016, Craige filed a pro se counterclaim in state court against Midfirst
Bank (“Midfirst”), Citimortgage, Inc., Citibank N.A., and Citigroup Inc (“the Citi Entities”).
The counterclaim alleges numerous procedural errors committed by Midfirst during the
1

foreclosure process, and also claims that the assignment of the note “has yet to be verified.” R.
Doc. 1-2 at 3. On July 26, 2016, the Court held that Third Party Plaintiff’s tort claims were
prescribed, but granted leave for Craige to amend his complaint and re-assert any non-prescribed
claims. R. Doc. 19. On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to “re-urge any non-prescribed
claims,” but did not specify any of the new claims he wished to assert against Defendants. R.
Doc. 21. The Court denied the Motion and explained that Plaintiff was barred from re-urging the
claims in the initial Complaint, as the Court already determined those claims had prescribed. R.
Doc. 23. The Court granted Third Party Plaintiff a third opportunity to file another Complaint
alleging a non-prescribed claim, if such a claim exists. R. Doc. 23.
In response, Craige filed a motion to re-urge a Complaint with non-prescribed claims
against any of the parties. R. Doc. 26. The Court dismissed this motion as moot. R. Doc. 38.
II. PRESENT MOTION
Counter Defendant Midfirst Bank has filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,
res judicata, and insufficient service. R. Doc. 43. First, Midfirst argues that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction because the claim is a collateral attack on a state court proceeding. R.
Doc. 43 at 4. The Bank argues that the foreclosure is a final judgment and cannot be reviewed
because the state court specifically rejected Craige’s claims. R. Doc. 43 at 6, 7.
Second, Midfirst argues that if the Court finds it has jurisdiction, the claims are barred by
res judicata. R. Doc. 43 at 9. The Bank avers that all foreclosures in Louisiana are res judicata
because they are judicial sales. R. Doc. 43 at 10. Therefore, because Craige failed to raise his
available arguments at the state court foreclosure, he should not be allowed to relitigate those
issues in federal court. R. Doc. 43 at 10.

2

Finally, Midfirst argues that Craige’s claims should be dismissed because Defendant
Midfirst Bank was never properly served. R. Doc. 43 at 10. Midfirst alleges that rather than
follow Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, 1 Craige mailed a copy of the complaint to a P.O. Box
in Oklahoma City. R. Doc. 43 at 11.
III. DISCUSSION
All claims brought by Third Party Plaintiff Craige against Third Party Defendants
Citimortgage, Inc., Citibank N.A., and Citigroup Inc. have been dismissed as either prescribed,
R. Doc. 19, or moot, R. Doc. 38, and the Citi Entities were terminated from this action on May,
26, 2017. Further, it appears that there are no live claims against Counter Defendant Midfirst
Bank because they were not properly served.
However, in the event that there were live claims against Counter Defendant Midfirst
Bank, such claims would be pre-empted by the state court foreclosure proceedings. Here, the
Court lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which “bars federal courts from
adjudicating claims where the plaintiff seeks to overturn a state-court judgment.” Troung v. Bank
of America, N.A., 717 F.3d 377, 381 (5th Cir. 2013) Therefore, any and all remaining claims
against Counter Defendant Midfirst Bank should be dismissed.

1

Under Louisiana law, service of a reconventional demand on a bank must be made by either: (1) personal service
on counsel of record; or (2) personal service on the registered agent; or, (3) if unable to serve the registered agent,
personal service on any officer of the bank at the main office of the bank. LA. CODE CIV. PRO. art. 1314; LA. CODE
CIV. PRO. art. 1261; LA. R.S. 6:285(C).

3

IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Counter Defendant Midfirst Bank’s Motion to Dismiss against the
Citi Entities is hereby GRANTED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of September, 2017.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cc:
Kristian R. Craige, Sr.
6306 Vanderbilt Avenue
Dallas, TX 75214
214-909-0588
PRO SE

4