Ademiluyi v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 9/29/2015. (nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

INRE:

*

CHRISTIE ADEMILUYI

*
*
*
*

Debtor

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, ET AL *

*
*
*

Movant
v.

Civil No. - JFM-15-777

*

CHRISTIE ADEMILUYI
Respondent

*
*
*

******
MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff has brought this action against CitiMortgage, Inc., Pennymac Holdings, LLC,
Pennymac Corp., and Pennymac Loan Services, LLC. Plaintiff asserts a claim for declaratory
relief against both CitiMortgage and the Pennymac defendants to the effect that her "mortgage
note [is] null and void ab initio" because of an improper assignment of the mortgage by
CitiMortgage.

She also asserts claims against CitiMortgage for violation of the Maryland

Consumer Protection Act, violation of the Maryland Fraud Protection Act, fraud, and negligence
and claims against Pennymac Loan Services for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and
the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. Plaintiff has filed for protection
under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, and this adversary proceeding was sua sponte
withdrawn by the Bankruptcy Court to this court. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss.
The motions will be granted for the following reasons.

I

,

First, it is clear under Fourth Circuit law that plaintiff does not own the claims that she
asserts. They are owned by the trustee of her bankruptcy estate. See Miller v. Pacific Shore
Funding, 287 B.R. 47, 49 (D. Md. 2002), aff'd92 Fed. App'x 933 (4th Cir. 2004). Cf National
Am. Ins. Co. v. Ruppert Landscaping Co., 187 F.3d 439, (4th Cir. 1999).
Second, plaintiff has no standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of the
mortgage. See, e.g., Chen v. Deutsche Bank, 2014 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 164452, at *12-15 (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 24, 2014); Ghaffari v. Wells Fargo, 2014 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 162007, at *15-16 (M.D.
Pa., Nov. 19,2014).
Third, the claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act fails because plaintiff was not
applying for a new loan but for a loan modification.

See Bartlett v. Bank of America, NA., 2014

W.L. 3773711 (D. Md., Jul. 29, 2014). Likewise, the claim under the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act fails because she has not alleged specific facts limiting any alleged personal
injury to any purportedly false statements made by CitiMortgage.

See Kaswell v. Wells Fargo,

2014 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 107879, at *21 (D. Md. Aug 6, 2014).
I also note that it appears that all ofplaintiffs

state law claims may be barred by

limitations and that her state law claims fail because plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. I would be inclined, however, to give plaintiff
leave to file a second amended complaint to allege the reasons that she believes that the
limitations period has not run and more specific reasons why CitiMortgage allegedly violated her
rights. Thus, these are not the grounds for the decision I am making. It is clear, however, that
plaintiffs present claims are insufficient and that they must be dismissed.
A separate order effecting the rulings made in this memorandum is being entered
herewith.

2

Date:

q/If/<

AdZ-;

~rederick MO~
mted States District Judge

,Ui\d30------- .i-B
3BO\~\11~H
l\i
)::I\;\:\O

ss :Zl \1d
3

s.';.\tl31:J

&2 d3S~lliZ