Bell et al v. Bank of America, NA
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 12/11/2013. (c/m 12/11/2013 aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EDWIN C. BELL, et al.,
*
Plaintiffs,
*
v.
*
Civil Action No. RDB-13-0478
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
as successor to BAC Home Loans,
Servicing, LP, as successor to
Countrywide Home Loans
Servicing, LP,
*
*
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Plaintiffs Edwin and Miranda Bell, proceeding pro se, assert numerous claims
against the Defendant Bank of America, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing,
LP (“Defendant” or “Bank of America”). Pending before this Court is Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss (“Motion”) (ECF No. 5). The parties’ submissions have been reviewed and no
hearing is deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the reasons that
follow, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
The Bells are a married couple who purchased a parcel of property located at 1404
Ramblewood Drive, Emmitsburg, Maryland in 2005. The property was financed with two
mortgages. After the first mortgage was transferred to Countrywide, the Plaintiffs defaulted
on the first mortgage and the property was sold in a foreclosure sale, ratified by the Circuit
Court for Frederick County, Maryland.
See Cohn v. Bell, et al., No. 10-C-09001261.
Thereafter, the second mortgage was also transferred to Countrywide.
Following
Countrywide’s merger with Bank of America, the Bells defaulted on the second mortgage.
The second mortgage was transferred to Dyck O’Neal, Inc., which sued the Bells for breach
of contract in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, Maryland on July 25, 2011. See Dyck
O’Neal, Inc. v. Bell, et al., No. 06-C-11-059558. That case, in which the Bells are represented
by counsel, is set for trial in January 2014.
In a Complaint filed in this Court, the Plaintiffs claim that these circumstances entitle
them to relief from Bank of America. The Bells list eighteen claims, asserting a host of state
common law causes of action, violations of federal statutes, and deprivations of their rights
under the United States Constitution.
Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain
a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and
each allegation therein must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 8(d)(1).
In general, a pleading must provide the defendant and the court with “fair notice of what the
plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Additionally, where, as
here, there are allegations of fraud, those claims are subject to a heightened pleading
standard under Rule 9. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (“In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state
with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake”).
As this Court has held, “‘the proper length and level of clarity for a pleading cannot
be defined with any great precision and is largely a matter for the discretion of the trial
court.’” Stone v. Warfield, 184 F.R.D. 553, 555 (D. Md. 1999) (quoting Charles A. Wright &
2
Arthur R. Miller, 5 Federal Practice & Procedure § 1217 (2d ed. 1990)). Although a pro se
plaintiff is general given more leeway than a party represented by counsel, this Court “has
not hesitated to require even pro se litigants to state their claims in an understandable and
efficient manner.” Id. (citing Anderson v. Univ. of Md. Sch. of Law, 130 F.R.D. 616, 617 (D.
Md. 1989), aff’d, 900 F.2d 249, 1990 WL 41120 (4th Cir. 1990) (unpublished table decision)).
To that end, a district court “is not obliged to ferret through a [c]omplaint, searching for
viable claims.” Wynn-Bey v. Talley, No. RWT-12-3121, 2012 WL 5986967, at *2 (D. Md. Nov.
28, 2012). Rather, a court “may dismiss a complaint that is so confused, ambiguous, vague
or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Id. (quoting
Salhuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)).
The Complaint in this case is a rambling recitation of numerous claims totaling 185
pages, excluding exhibits, and contains eighteen loosely-stated counts. It is not a “short and
plain statement, nor is it concise and direct.” Wynn-Bey, 2012 WL 5986967, at *2. The
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss only further confuses the
issues. If, as the Plaintiffs baldly assert, sufficient facts are alleged somewhere within the
lengthy Complaint to support a cause of action, it is their duty to plead them in such a way
as to comply with Rules 8 and 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wynn-Bey, 2012
WL 5986967, at *2. The Complaint as alleged “places an unjustifiable burden on [the
Defendant] to determine the nature of the claims against [it] and to speculate on what [its]
defenses might be,” and unfairly burdens this Court “to sort out the factual basis of any
claims fairly raised.” Id. (citing Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 123 (D Md. 1981)); Stone, 184
F.R.D. at 555 (“The Complaint presents a tangled web of conclusory accusations that
3
frequently fail to correspond with any supporting facts. As such, it places an unfair burden
on the defendants and this Court to attempt to determine which claims have merit and
which [do not].”).
Despite their pro se status, the Bells must still state their claims in “an understandable
and efficient manner.” Stone, 184 F.R.D. at 555. Their rambling 185-page Complaint fails to
meet this standard. Accordingly, their case is subject to dismissal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED
without prejudice.
A separate Order follows.
Dated: December 11, 2013
/s/
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge
4
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?