Beatty v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 8/23/2012. (aos, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 8/23/2012 (c/m 8/23/12 mps, Deputy Clerk).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
GREGORY BEATTY,
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING,
LP, et al.,
:
Civil Action No. GLR-12-1148
:
Defendants.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff
Gregory Beatty’s Complaint filed by Defendants Bank of America,
N.A. (“BANA”), individually and as a successor by merger to BAC
Home
Loans
Servicing,
Registration
Systems,
“Defendants”).
to the Motion.
briefed
and
(D.Md. 2011).
no
LP
(“BACHLS”),
Inc.
(ECF No. 7).
is
(“MERS”)
Mortgage
Electronic
(collectively
the
Mr. Beatty has filed an Opposition
(ECF No. 12).
hearing
and
The issues have been fully
necessary.
See
Local
Rule
105.6
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss will be granted.1
1
Mr. Beatty has filed several Motions to Proceed with
Trial.
(See ECF Nos. 10, 15, 17, 19, 21, 24).
These Motions
will be denied by operation of law based upon the granting of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Mr. Beatty has also sued
fictitious Defendants Jane and John Doe. These Defendants will
be dismissed outright pursuant to the Federal Rules because
these “Defendants” do not exist.
Finally, the Court summarily
I.
BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2012, Mr. Beatty filed the present Complaint
against
the
Defendants
alleging
tortious
conduct,
breach
of
contract, and violation of various statutes arising from the
foreclosure on a home he owned in Randallstown, Maryland.
This
is the second such lawsuit arising out of the same facts and
circumstances.
On August 16, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a prior
complaint making the same underlying factual allegations. See
Beatty v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. 10-CV-2229-RDB, ECF
No. 1. (D.Md. Dec. 9, 2011).
As
in
the
previous
case,
Mr.
Beatty
alleges
that
he
received a residential mortgage loan of $224,574.00 by executing
a
Note
and
Deed
Randallstown.
He
mortgage
payment,
of
Trust
secured
argues
that
the
which
subsequently
by
his
Defendants
caused
property
in
misapplied
a
an
foreclosure proceeding to be instituted against him.
erroneous
He further
contends that the Defendants improperly canceled his homeowners
insurance.
present
At bottom, each and every cause of action in the
Complaint
arises
from
these
basic
facts
and
circumstances.
rejects Mr. Beatty’s argument regarding a lack of due process as
it is wholly without merit and belied by the record and evidence
in this case.
2
On June 21, 2011, subsequent to discovery in the first
case, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant
BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, a named Defendant in the present
action.
See Beatty v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. 10-CV-
2229-RDB, ECF Nos. 28, 29 (D.Md. Jun. 21, 2011).
The Court
found that the provisions of the loan agreement did not support
a breach of contract claim based upon the misapplication of Mr.
Beatty’s mortgage payment.
Further, the Court found that while
Mr. Beatty’s payments were misapplied, they were later applied
properly upon revelation of the mistake.
that
Defendant
Plaintiff
BAC
based
did
upon
not
the
violate
The Court also found
any
contract
cancellation
of
the
with
the
homeowners
insurance.
Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor
of BACHLS.
Id.
Mr. Beatty subsequently appealed the decision
of this Court to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the decision of the district court.
See Beatty v. BAC
Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. 11-1724 (4th Cir. Nov. 17, 2011).
Defendants now move to dismiss the present action in this
case for two reasons.
First, Defendants argue that the present
claims
res
are
barred
by
judicata
and
collateral
estoppel.
Second, they argue that the pleadings in the Complaint fail to
meet the pleading requirements outlined in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure
8(a),
and
thus,
pursuant
3
to
Rule
12(B)(6),
the
Complaint
fails
to
state
a
claim
upon
which
relief
can
be
granted.
Mr. Beatty filed an Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss.
The Opposition, however, fails to address any of the
arguments made by Defendants.
Instead, the Opposition merely
notes
complaint
that
(1)
the
earlier
filed
is
“totally
different”; (2) the present Complaint is a “separate complaint”;
and (3) Mr. Beatty was not given “due process” because he is a
“pro se litigant.”
(Pl.’s Opp’n at 1, ECF No. 9).
II.
A.
Plaintiff’s
Claims
Collateral Estoppel
DISCUSSION
are
Barred
by
Res
Judicata
and
The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because the
Complaint
is
barred
by
the
doctrines
of
res
judicata
and
collateral estoppel.
The doctrine of res judicata bars the relitigation of
a claim if there is a final judgment in a previous
litigation where the parties, the subject matter, and
the causes of action are identical or substantially
identical as to the issues actually litigated and to
those which could have or should have been raised in
previous litigation.
See Anne Arundel Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Norville, 887 A.2d 1029,
1037 (Md. 2005).
The doctrine of res judicata “is a final bar
to any other law suit upon the same cause of action, and is
conclusive, not only as to all matters that have been raised in
the original suit, but as to all matters which with propriety
4
could have been litigated in the first suit.”
addition,
under
Maryland
law,
the
Id. at 1036.
doctrine
of
In
collateral
estoppel operates to bar a party from relitigating an issue that
was already litigated in another action.
See Culver v. Md. Ins.
Comm’r., 931 A.2d 537, 542 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. 2007).
For
the
prerequisites
previous
doctrine
must
litigation
be
of
met:
must
res
judicata
(1)
have
the
been
to
issue
identical
apply,
four
decided
in
to
one
the
the
in
question in the current litigation; (2) there must be a final
judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the claim is
asserted was either a party to the prior litigation or was in
privity
with
a
party
to
that
litigation;
and
(4)
the
party
against whom the claim is asserted must have been given a full
and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.
Wash. Suburban
Sanitary Comm’n. v. TKU Assocs., 376 A.2d 505, 514 (Md. 1977).
Applying the doctrine of res judicata to the facts and
circumstances in the present case, it is clear that the current
litigation involves the same party, BAC Home Loans Servicing,
LP, and identical, or substantially identical, subject matter
and causes of action, which were unsuccessfully litigated in the
first
case.
Further,
although
Mr.
Beatty
adds
additional
Defendants and causes of action to the present Complaint, these
matters, including these Defendants, and the issues related to
them, could have been litigated in the first lawsuit.
5
As a
result, based upon Defendants’ Motion and Opposition thereto,
the doctrine of res judicata applies and Mr. Beatty’s Complaint
will be dismissed on that ground.
Similarly,
Mr.
Beatty’s
present
claim
for
breach
of
contract must also be dismissed under the doctrine of collateral
estoppel.
This
allegation
was
thoroughly
litigated
in
the
previous case, judgment was granted in the Defendants’ favor,
and the decision was affirmed on appeal.
As a result, the
breach of contract claim is barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel and must be dismissed in its entirety.
B.
Plaintiff’s Claims Must be Dismissed for Failure to Comply
With Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6)
1.
Standard of Review
Rule 8(a)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in
pertinent part that a pleading stating a claim for relief must
contain “[a] short and plain statement of the claims showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .”
Defendants
argue that Mr. Beatty’s Complaint should be dismissed pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) in that it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion should be
granted
unless
an
adequately
stated
claim
is
“supported
by
showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the
complaint.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561
6
(2007) (internal citations omitted); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
“A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 550 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555.
“naked
A complaint is also insufficient if it relies upon
assertions
devoid
of
further
factual
enhancement.”
Iqbal, 550 U.S. at 678 (internal citations omitted).
In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a
complaint must set forth “a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.”
Id.; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
A claim is
facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 550
U.S. at 678; Twombly, 555 U.S. at 556.
In
considering
construe
the
a
Rule
complaint
in
12(b)(6)
the
light
motion,
most
the
Court
favorable
to
must
the
plaintiff, read the complaint as a whole, and take the facts
asserted therein as true.
Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d
1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993).
court
may
also
examine
In addition to the complaint, the
“documents
incorporated
into
the
complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take
judicial notice.”
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).
“Conclusory allegations regarding the
legal effect of the facts alleged” need not be accepted.
7
Labram
v. Havel, 43 F.3d 918, 921 (4th Cir. 1995).
purpose
of
the
complaint
is
to
provide
Because the central
the
defendant
“fair
notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon
which
it
rests,”
supported
by
the
some
plaintiff’s
factual
legal
basis
allegations
sufficient
defendant to prepare a fair response.
to
must
allow
be
the
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556
n.3.
2.
Analysis
The Court finds that Mr. Beatty’s Complaint fails to state
a
claim
upon
which
relief
can
be
granted
for
four
reasons.
First, Defendants correctly point out that Maryland does not
recognize
torts
of
negligence
circumstances presented here.
in
contract
cases
under
the
See Kuechler v. Peoples Bank, 602
F.Supp.2d 625, 635 (D.Md. 2009) (dismissing claims for negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty on this basis);
see also Am. Tank Transp., Inc. v. First People’s Cmty. Fed.
Credit Union, No. HAR 94-459, 1995 WL 45676, at *5 (D.Md. Jan.
11,
1995)
showing
Secondly,
(dismissing
that
Mr.
duty
negligence
of
Beatty
care
failed
claim
existed
to
because
for
meet
the
there
bank’s
was
no
customers).
heightened
pleading
requirements as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)
in
alleging
violation
of
fraud.
the
Thirdly,
revenue
tax
Mr.
code
Beatty’s
or
other
Complaint
statutory
for
codes
outlined therein fails because, as Defendants correctly point
8
out, those statutes do not exist.
Finally, Mr. Beatty’s alleged
facts do not support any breach of implied covenant of good
faith or fair dealing.
As a result, the balance of Mr. Beatty’s
allegations and causes of action will be dismissed outright,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
III. CONCLUSION
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
the
Court
will,
by
separate
order, GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.
(ECF
No. 7).
Entered this 23rd day of August, 2012
/s/
____________________________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?