Molina v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 8/27/14 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/27/14. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
JUAN MOLINA
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 14-0513
:
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently
pending
and
ready
for
resolution
in
this
foreclosure case is the unopposed motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“JP Morgan”).
(ECF No.
14).
property
Plaintiff
purports
to
be
the
owner
of
real
located at 11812 Dewey Road, Silver Spring, Maryland 20906.
It
appears that all of Plaintiff’s claims stem from a loan obtained
from First National Bank of Arizona on April 27, 2007 in the
amount of $468,000.
The loan was evidenced by a promissory note
and secured by a Deed of Trust.
(ECF Nos. 14-3 and 14-4).
April 2012, the note was assigned to Defendant.
Although
factually
sparse,
Plaintiff’s
In
(ECF No. 14-5).
complaint
alleges
that there is uncertainty about the note’s holder and the amount
due on the loan.
On December 30, 2013, Plaintiff, proceeding
pro se, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Montgomery
County.
Defendant represents that it received a copy of the
complaint and summons on January 24, 2014 (ECF No. 1 ¶ 2), and
removed the case to this court on February 21, 2014, citing
diversity jurisdiction.1
fraud
and
deceit,
Plaintiff brings claims for negligence,
accounting,
breach
of
contract,
unjust
enrichment, quiet title, and declaratory relief.
On February 28, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim.
provided
with
a
Roseboro
(ECF No. 14).
notice,
which
Plaintiff was
advised
him
of
the
pendency of the motion and his entitlement to respond within
seventeen (17) days from the date of the letter.
(ECF No. 15);
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding
pro
se
plaintiffs
should
be
advised
of
their
right
responsive material to a motion for summary judgment).
to
file
To date,
Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion to dismiss,
and the time for him to do so has long expired.
Indeed, he has
not filed anything at all since the case was removed from state
court.
Because
Plaintiff
failed
to
file
any
opposition
to
the
motion, the court has the discretion to dismiss the case without
reaching the merits.
Indeed, Judge Hollander recently dismissed
the complaint in White v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., No. ELH-1300031, 2014 WL 1369609, at *2 (D.Md. Apr. 4, 2014), where pro se
plaintiff failed to oppose defendant’s motion to dismiss.
1
Judge
Plaintiff is a citizen of Maryland while Defendant is a
citizen of Ohio. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
2
Hollander stated that “[w]hen a plaintiff fails to oppose a
motion to dismiss, a district court is ‘entitled, as authorized,
to rule on the . . . motion and dismiss [the] suit on the
uncontroverted
bases
asserted’
in
the
motion.
Id.
(quoting
Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354 (4th Cir. 2004));
Ferdinand-Davenport v. Children’s Guild, 742 F.Supp.2d 772, 777
(D.Md.
2010)
(“By
her
failure
to
respond
to
[defendant’s]
argument” in a motion to dismiss, “the plaintiff abandons [her]
claim.”).
Although the district court also has discretion to
decline to “grant a motion to dismiss based on the failure to
file a timely opposition when the motion is plainly lacking in
merit,” this is not the case here.
White, 2014 WL 1369609, at
*2 (quoting United States v. Sasscer, Civ. No. Y-97-3026, 2000
WL 1479154, at *2 n.6 (D.Md. Aug. 25, 2000)).
Moreover, a
district court has “the inherent authority . . . to dismiss a
lawsuit sua sponte for failure to prosecute.”
United States v.
Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 236 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Link v.
Wabash
R.R.
Co.,
370
U.S.
626,
629
(1962));
White,
2014
WL
1369609, at *2 (“[i]n light of plaintiff’s failure to oppose the
[m]otion, I can only assume that plaintiff concedes that her
Complaint is deficient for the reasons stated by defendant.”).
There is no obvious lack of merit in Defendant’s motion given
the
dearth
of
factual
allegations
in
Plaintiff’s
complaint.
None of the meager facts give rise to a claim to quiet title or
3
any other cognizable cause of action.
motion
to
dismiss
will
be
granted.
Accordingly, Defendant’s
A
separate
order
follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
will
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?