Ransom et al v. Nationstar Mortgage et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/14/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 3/14/16)

FILED

0I9TJ}'~{tlY\~'E~HO

IN THE UNITED STATES ()JSTRICT COURW.S.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND OISIRIC I

Soutllem Dh'isio/l

.

101h MAR \ l\

'A q: 28

*
ALLEN RANSOM, .JR., et aI.,

*

BY

Plaintiffs,

.. _'--"

n::-pl'i '{

.

*
v.

Case No.: G,/H-15-16-t7

*
NATIONSTAR

MORTGAGE

LLC, et aI.,

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

On April 20. 2015. Plaintiffs Allcn Ransom . .Ir. and Brcnda B. Ransom (collcctively.
"Plaintiffs") initiated the above-titlcd pro sc action to quiet titlc against Dcfendants Nationstar
Mortgage LLC ("Nationstar ..)1 and Equillomc Mortgagc. Corporation ("EquiHome")
(collectively. "Defendants"). See ECF NO.2. This Memorandum Opinion and accompanying
Order address Defcndants' unopposcd Motion to Dismiss. lOCI'No. 13. and Plaintiffs' Motion to
Dismiss Illegal Foreclosure for Lack of Standing. ECF No. 17. The time for a response to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss has expired and a hearing is unnecessary. See D. Md. I.oc. R.
105.2(a) (2014): see a/so D. Md. Loe. R. 105.6 (2014). For the reasons stated herein.
Nationstar's Motion to Dismiss is denied. and Plaintiffs' Motion is dcnicd.
I.

BACKGROUND
Although the Complaint is largely unintelligible. it appears that Plaintiffs challenge the

foreclosure of real property located at 10886 Moore Street. Waldorf: Maryland 20603 (the
"Property"). which they allege they own. See Eel' NO.2. 4. On April 20. 20 J 5. Plaintiffs
J Plaintiffs name ..Nationstnr Mortgage" as a Defendant: however. there is no known legal entity by that name. The
Clerk will be directed to amend the docket to rel1ect the correct name of the defendant.

initiated this pro se action against Defendants
See ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Although

in the Circuit Court fiJI' Charles County. Maryland.

not labcled as such. Plaintiffs'

Complaint

causes of action: (l) an action to quiet title. (2) violation of the National
violation of the Fair Debt Collection

declaring

Plaintiffs'

Complaint

of the Unilimn

requests an order: (I)

that they hold clear and clean title to thc Propcrty. (2) vacating the prior fiJrcclosurc of

thc Property.

(3) requiring

same. and (4) declaring
Plaintiffs.

a Forcnsic Audit ofthePromiss(JrY

the assignmcnt

See id. at 2. A summons

as to Nationstar
Lewisville,

on April 22.2015.

TX 75067:'

suggest that EquiHome
000996 (Charles

Notc and Plaintitl's'

against

addressed

to "Nationstar

Mortgagc"

at "350 Ilighiand

thc docket in the state court procceding
there is nothing on this Court's

Dr.

appcars to
dockct to

has been scrved in this action. See Clarke \', Ra/1Solll. No. 08.C.15.

Cty. Cir. CI. April 22. 2015).

1332. 1441. 1446. removing

July 2. 20 IS. Nationstar

Nationstar

filed a Noticc of Rcmoval pursuant to 28 USc.

the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

tiled a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See ECF 13.1. On July 6.2015.
thcm of their right to tile a response

thcy failed to rcspond. thcir claims could be dismissed.
by Plaintill's

bc grantcd

the Court scntlctters

See ECF Nos. IS & 16. No rcsponsc was

lor Lack of Standing.

2

to each

no later than July 20. 2015. and that. if

prior to the ./uly 20. 2015 duc datc. On ./uly 24. 2015. Plaintiffs

Motion to Dismiss IlIcgal Foreclosure

On

for improper scrvice of proccss

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) and li)r lailure to statc a claim upon which rcliefean

received

on

was issucd by the Circuit Court for Charles County. Maryland

was issucd as to Equillome.

On June 5. 2015. Delcndant

Plaintiffinlomling

signaturcs

of thc Decd of Trust as invalid and uncnforceable

ECF NO.3. Although

indicatc that a summons

SS

Bank Act of 1864. (3)

Practices Act. (4) li'aud. and (5) violations

Code. See ECF NO.2. Additionally.

Commercial

appears to allege live

tilcd a

which does not respond to

Nationstar's Motion to Dismiss. but rather appears to be an attcmpt by Plaintiffs to amend thcir
complaint.2 See ECr No. 17. Nationstar opposed Plaintiffs' Motion. ECF No. 18.
II.

DISCUSSION
Nationstar has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for insufticicnt service ofproccss

and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rules 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) of
the red era I Rules of Civil procedure. respectively. Ifscrvice is contested under Rule 12(b)(5).
the plaintifT"bears the burden of establishing [its] validity:' () 'Meal'({

I'.

Walers. 464 F. Supp. 2d

474,476 (D, Md, 2006), "Generally. when service of process gives the defendant actual notice of
the pending action. the courts may construe Rulc 4 liberally:' Jd. But. the "plain requirements for
thc means of eflecting scrvice may not be ignored:' Jd. "When the court finds that service of
process was insufficient but thc defendant received actual notice of the claims against it. the
court may treat a motion to dismiss as a motion to quash and thereby provide thc plaintitTwith
reasonable opportunity to attcmpt to effect valid service of process on the delendant:' Jackso/7

I'.

Early Warning. No, P.lM 15-1233.2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15150. at *3 (D. Md. Feb. 3.2016)
(citing Vorhees

I'.

Fischer & Krecke GmhH & Co., 697 F.2d 574. 576 (4th Cir. 1983)),

The Fedcral Rules require that a detendant be served with the complete pleading and a
copy of the summons, Fed. R, Civ, p, 4(c). "In cases removed to federal court. state law
determines whether service of process was properly cflectcd prior to rcmoval:' 7i'atlemal'k
Remodeling.
All/a

Inc. v. Rhines. 853 1', Supp. 2d 532, 539 (D. Md. 2012) (quoting SICl'el'SO/7 I'. HSBC

Fin .. /nc., No. DKC-10-3119. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXlS 30214. at *11 (D, Md, Mar. 23.

2011)); see also Fed, R. Civ. P, 4(e)( 1) (An individual may be scrved by "following statc law for

For this reason, Plaintiffs' Motion will be denied. See Z"clllIir. Ltd. \'. Driggs, 965 F. Supp. 741,748 n.4 (D. Md.
1997) air d, 141 F.3d 1162 (4th Cir. 1998) ("The plaintifl] is bound by the allegations contained in its complaint and
cannot. through the use of motion briefs. amend the complaint:"). )f Pia inti ffs seek to amend their Complaint. they
may do so \vith Defendants' consent or by filing a Illotion for leave to file an amended complaint with the COllI1.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
2

3

serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the
district court is located or where service is made:'). Where. as here. the defendant is a Limited
Liability Company (""LLC"). Maryland Rule 2- J 24(h) expressly provides that service is made by
serving the LLCs "resident agent ... [or] [i]f the limited liability company has no resident agent
or if a good faith attempt to serve the resident agent has failed. service may be made upon any
member or other person expressly or impliedly authorized to receive service of process:' Md. R.
2-124(h) (2004). Maryland Rule 2-121(a)(3) authorizes service "by mailing to the person to be
served a copy of the summons. complaint. and all other papers filed with it by certified mail
requesting: 'Restricted Delivery-show

to whom, date. address of delivery .... Md. R. 2- J 21(a)(3)

(2004).
Because Defendants have challenged the validity of service. the burden is on Plaintiffs to
establish that service was valid. Here. Plaintiffs have not filed a response to Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss for insufticient service of process. and PlaintifTs' Motion to Dismiss Illegal
Foreclosure for Lack of Standing asserts neither that service of process was valid. nor that a good
faith attempt to properly complete the service of process was made. See ECF No. 17.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing that service was valid.
Moreover, there is nothing in thc record suggesting that Plaintiffs' Complaint and summons were
served on Nationstar's rcsident agcnt. Instcad. Plaintiffs mailed. via ccrtified mail. a copy ofthc
Complaint and a Summons to: ooNationstar Mortgage. 350 Highland Drive. Lewisville. TX
75067:-3 See ECF No. 2-2. The documents were addressed to the attcntion ofNationstar"s

According to the Mary'land Department of Assessments & Taxation. Nationstar"s Resident Agent in f\..1arylandis:
eSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company. 7 51. Paul Street. Suite 820. Baltimore. ~1aryland 21202. Sf.!e ECF
No. 13-1 at 6 n.6~SI!f! a/so Charter Record 5ieurch. Md. Dep't of Assessment & Tax"n.
http://sdat.dat.maryland.gov/ucc-charter/PagesICharterSearch/deratllt.asp'
(last visited Feb. 23. 2016).
3

"Legal"' department. See ill. Because it appears that Plaintiffs made no attempt to serve
Nationstar's resident agent. service was invalid.
Defendant Nationstar did. however. have actual notice of the Complaint. Taking into
consideration Plaintiffs' pro se status and Nationstar's receipt of actual notice of the Complaint.
the Court will not dismiss the Complaint for ineffective service of process at this time. See GmJ'
V.

Allied /Vasle Sen's., No. RWT Ilcv1612. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95784. at *9 (D. Md. July

10, 2012) ("Because Plainti ITis pro se and Defendant received actual notice. dismissal Il.)r
ineffective service of process is inappropriate at this stage"'). However. because ..the rules arc
there to be followed. and plain requirements Il.)rthe means of effecting service of process may
not be ignored," Armco. Illc. \'. Pel1rod-Slallf(er Bldg

.,>:I's ..

Il1c 733 F.2d 1087. 1089 (4th Cif.
..

1984), service on Nationstar must be quashed. and Nationstar's Motion to Dismiss for I~\iltll'eto
state a claim upon which relief can be granted will be denied as moot. See. e.g. GmJ'. 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 95784. at *9 (quashing service on defendant by pro se plaintilI in lieu of dismissal.
and denying motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as moot "with leave to renew at such
time after PlaintifT properly serves the Defendant").
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. service on

ationstar is QUASHED.

Plaintiffs will be given

fourteen (14) days to properly efTect service on Nationstar.4 Nationstar's Motion to Dismiss lor
insufficient service of process is DENIED. and its Motion to Dismiss for failure to estate a claim
is also DENIED. without prejudice. as moot. Nationstar may renew its motion it: and when. it is
properly served. Additionally. because there is nothing in the docket to indicate that EquiHome
has been properly served. the Court will issue an order to show cause within fourtccn (14) days

4

Plaintiffs are reminded that. once service has been effectuated, proof of service must be made by the server's

affidavit, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(1)( 1).

5

of the Court's Order why the Complaint should not be dismissed as to Equillome pursuant to
Fed. R, Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Illegal Foreclosure Action i(Jr Lack of
Standing is DENIED. A separate Order follows,

Dated: March

A-d--

t(.2016

GEORGE J. HAm
United States District Judge

6