Castillo v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 10/8/14 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/8/14. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
:

ANA CASTILLO

:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 14-2162

:
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently

pending

and

ready

for

resolution

in

this

foreclosure action is an unopposed motion to dismiss filed by
Defendants Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”) and The Bank
of New York Mellon (“BONY”).

(ECF No. 14).

For the following

reasons, the motion will be granted.
Plaintiff Ana Castillo commenced this action on April 9,
2014

by

filing

a

pro

se

complaint

against

Defendants,

Nationstar, BONY, First Horizon Home Loans (“First Horizon”),
and Buonassissi Henning & Lash, PC (“BHL”) in the Circuit Court
for Prince George’s County, Maryland.

(ECF No. 2).

On July 3,

2014, Defendants Nationstar and BONY filed a notice of removal
to this court, citing federal question jurisdiction.
1).

(ECF No.

Plaintiff purports to be the sole title holder of real

property located at 6501 Lamont Place, New Carrolton, Maryland
20784 (the “Property”).

It appears that Plaintiff’s claims stem

from a loan she obtained from First Horizon in the amount of

$296,000.

(Id. ¶ 13).

Plaintiff asserts that Nationstar – the

purported new loan servicer - offered her a loan modification
which

was

“never

concluded

because

they

kept

requesting

different documents over and over again making the application
impossible to finish.”

(Id. ¶ 14).

Plaintiff contends that

Nationstar is now claiming that the balance due is $354,429.57
because of late payments, unpaid principal balance, and interest
dating back to 2012.

(Id. ¶ 16).

Plaintiff believes that she

has paid approximately $148,000.00.
Although
clarity,

her

complaint

Plaintiff

asserts

is

(Id. ¶ 17).

a

five

far

cry

discernable

from

a

causes

model
of

of

action

against Defendants.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that: (1)

Defendants

the

violated

Fair

Debt

Collection

Practices

Act

(“FDCPA”); (2) the court should issue a declaratory judgment
declaring the Deed of Trust void with no effect; (3) quiet title
should be granted to Plaintiff; (4) Defendants engaged in fraud
through

misrepresentation;

and

(5)

Defendants

were

unjustly

enriched by Plaintiff’s overpayments.
Defendants Nationstar and BONY moved to dismiss on July 24,
2014.

(ECF No. 14).

On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff was provided

with a Roseboro notice, which advised her of the pendency of the
motion and her 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
2

plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive
material

to

a

motion

for

summary

judgment).

Additionally,

Plaintiff was ordered to present summonses for Defendants First
Horizon and BHL.

(ECF No. 16).

Plaintiff failed to produce the

summonses or otherwise respond to the order, and Plaintiff’s
complaint against First Horizon and BHL was dismissed.
No. 17).

(See ECF

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the

motion to dismiss either, and the time for her to do so has long
expired.
Because Plaintiff has failed to file any opposition to the
motion, the court has the discretion to dismiss the case without
reaching

the

merits.

Indeed,

Judge

Hollander

dismissed

the

complaint in White v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.
ELH-13-00031, 2014 WL 1369609, at *2 (D.Md. Apr. 4, 2014), where
pro se plaintiff failed to oppose defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Judge 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
3

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-973026,

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.”);
Brown-Henderson v. Capital One, N.A., Civ. Action No. DKC 133324, 2014 WL 3778689, at *1 (D.Md. July 29, 2014) (dismissing
unopposed motion to dismiss in a quiet title action).
no

obvious

lack

of

merit

in

Defendants’

motion

There is
given

the

allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint, none of which
give rise to a claim for quiet title, unjust enrichment, or any
other

cognizable

motion

to

dismiss

cause
will

of
be

action.
granted.

Accordingly,
A

separate

Defendants’
order

follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

4

will