Ahmad v. Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 6/4/14. (mps, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ISMAIL K. AHMAD,
*
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Civil Action No. RDB-13-3326
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Plaintiff Ismail Ahmad filed a pro se suit, in the Circuit Court of Maryland for
Baltimore City, against Defendants Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie
Mae”) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), asserting a quiet title
action and seeking injunctive relief in connection with certain real property. The Defendants
removed the case to this Court. Ginnie Mae filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) and
MERS filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and
Motion to Terminate Lis Pendens (ECF No. 9). The Clerk of the Court mailed the Plaintiff a
letter warning him that his case may be dismissed if he did not file a response. The Plaintiff
did not file any opposition, and Defendant MERS requested a ruling on its unopposed
Motion to Dismiss. This Court then ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why his Complaint
should not be dismissed (ECF No. 13). The Plaintiff, now represented by counsel, filed his
response to the show cause order. In his response, the Plaintiff provided no explanation for
the delay other than his former pro se status. He provided no clarification as to his claims or
newly discovered evidence in support thereof. Indeed, he has not stated any reasons why
the Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons stated in the pending Motions to
Dismiss, but only requests more time to respond. This Court concludes that the Plaintiff
has failed to show good cause why his claims should not be dismissed. See, e.g., Chen v. Mayor
of Balt., 292 F.R.D. 288, 294-95 (D. Md. 2013) (dismissing case where plaintiff’s proffered
reasons for late service did not establish good cause).
Furthermore, the causes of action asserted in Ahmad’s Complaint are subject to
dismissal because he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. His claim in
Count 1 is premised on the incorrect notion that a Defendant must be a “holder in due
course” in order to enforce the Note and Deed of Trust at issue. This position is contrary to
Maryland law. Anderson v. Burson, 35 A.3d 452, 460-62 (Md. 2011) (citing Md. Code Ann.,
Com. Law §§ 3-203 and 3-301). Likewise, in Count 2, the mere fact that MERS did not hold
title to the subject real property does not support a cause of action against MERS.
Additionally, his claim in Count 3 that there was no express permission granted to transfer
the Note and Deed of Trust to Ginnie Mae fails to state a claim because no such express
permission is necessary for transfer. See Svrcek v. Rosenberg, 40 A.3d 494, 507 (Md. Ct. Spec.
App. 2012) (recognizing that notes may be transferred freely and carry with them the
security of any deed of trust). His claim in Count 4 based on improper recording of the
Deed of Trust by Ginnie Mae similarly fails because the ninety-day recording requirement he
cites is in an Internal Revenue Code provision applicable to Real Estate Mortgage Conduits,
2
which are not at issue in this case. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 860A-860G.1 Accordingly, the Plaintiff
is not entitled to the injunctive relief he seeks, and because the case will be dismissed, the lis
pendens on the property must be terminated. See Md. Rule 12-102(c)(2).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Ginnie Mae’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) and
MERS’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and
Motion to Terminate Lis Pendens (ECF No. 9) are GRANTED.
A separate Order follows.
Dated: June 4, 2014
/s/
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge
1
Because this Court will dismiss all claims, the additional arguments raised by Ginnie Mae regarding
lack of contractual privity, lack of standing, improper service of process, and sovereign immunity
need not be addressed at this time.
3
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?