Pitts et al v. Bank of New York Mellon et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 5 Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment; GRANTING 6 Defendant Prince George's County Sheriff's Office's Motion to Dismiss; GRANTING 10 Defendants McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC and Erin Shaffer's Motion to Quash; GRANTING 14 Defendant Bank of New York Mellon's Motion to Extend Time to Respond and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint; DENYING 26 Plaintiffs' Notice of Opposition and Motion to Dismiss and DENYING 27 Plaintiffs' Opposition and Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 5/10/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 5/10/16)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

HERCULES O. PITTS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al.
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Case No. RWT 15cv2986

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on October 1, 2015, ECF No. 1, and sought a Motion for
Judgment by Default on February 10, 2016, ECF No. 5, which the Court has reviewed.
Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 6 and 14, and a Motion to Quash Service,
ECF No. 10. The Complaint presents deficiencies related to jurisdiction, service of process, and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), among others. The Court need not—and may not—reach all of
deficiencies, however, because the claims are barred by res judicata. For this reason, the Motion
for Judgment by Default will be denied, the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Motion to
Quash Service will be granted, and the Complaint will be dismissed.
The allegations in this case stem from a foreclosure action on a residential property filed
against Plaintiffs in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland on July 27, 2014,
O’Sullivan, et al. v. Pitts, et al., Case No. CAEF14-20170. ECF No. 10 n.1. On April 17, 2015,
the Circuit Court ruled in favor of Defendants, ratifying the foreclosure sale to the Bank of New
York Mellon. Plaintiff appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Case No. 1320-15,
which subsequently dismissed the appeal on March 3, 2016. Plaintiffs also challenged the
foreclosure in two lawsuits in this Court, Pitts v. Mozilo, Case Nos. GJH-15-451 and

GJH-15-933. There, Judge Hazel provided a thorough review of the claims in his Memorandum
Opinion dismissing the case with prejudice based on res judicata, failure to state a claim, and the
Anti-Injunction Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2283. Pitts v. Mozilo, Case No. GJH-15-451, 2015 WL
4770941, *6 (D. Md. Aug 11, 2015).

Although largely nonsensical, Plaintiff’s current

Complaint again appears to allege fraud by Defendants. ECF No. 1 at 6.
“It is well established that the doctrine of res judicata bars the relitigation of matters
previously litigated between parties and their privies, as well as those claims that could have
been asserted and litigated in the original suit.” Anyanwutaku v. Fleet Mortgage Grp., Inc.,
85 F. Supp. 2d 566, 570 (D. Md.) (emphasis in original), aff’d, 229 F.3d 1141 (4th Cir. 2000).
“The Maryland courts and this Court, applying Maryland law, have consistently held that res
judicata bars collateral attacks on foreclosure judgments entered in the Circuit Courts.”
Jones v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. RWT 09CV2904, 2011 WL 382371, at *5 (D. Md.
Feb. 3, 2011), aff’d, 444 F. App’x 640 (4th Cir. 2011). Because the original suit was brought in
state court, Maryland principles of res judicata apply. See Andrews v. Daw, 201 F.3d 521, 524
(4th Cir. 2000). “The elements of res judicata under federal law are analogous to those under
Maryland law: (1) identical parties, or parties in privity, in the two actions; (2) the claim in the
second matter is based upon the same cause of action involved in the earlier proceeding; and
(3) a prior and final judgment on the merits, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in
accordance with due process requirements.”

Anne Arundel Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Norville,

390 Md. 93, 108, 887 A.2d 1029, 1037–38 (2005).
All three prongs are satisfied here. First, the parties are identical or in privity. Second,
all of the Plaintiffs’ claims are derived from the foreclosure action, and are thus part of the same
claim. See Norville, 390 Md. 93, 108, 887 A.2d at 1038 (“[I]f the two claims or theories are

2

based upon the same set of facts and one would expect them to be tried together ordinarily, then
a party must bring them simultaneously.”). Here, the docket of the state court foreclosure
proceeding—along with the prior suits filed in this Court—demonstrates that Plaintiffs
repeatedly challenged the foreclosure process. Specifically, many of the grounds Plaintiffs argue
here are the exact arguments made before the prior courts, and to the extent those claims differed
slightly, they could have been raised during the action in state court. Third and finally, there was
a final judgment on the merits in the prior litigation, both in Maryland and in federal court.
Dismissal of the action by a federal court ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss is a final
judgment sufficient for res judicata purposes. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946).
Accordingly, it is, this 10th day of May, 2016, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland
ORDERED, that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment by Default (ECF No. 5) is hereby
DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Office’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is hereby GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendants McCabe, Weisberg & Conway LLC and Erin M. Shaffer’s
Motion to Quash Service (ECF No. 10) is hereby GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Defendant Bank of New York Mellon’s Motion to Extend Time to
Respond and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 14) is hereby GRANTED; and
it is further

3

ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ Notice of Opposition and Motion to Dismiss [Defendant
Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Office’s] Reply to Plaintiff(s) Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 26) is hereby DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ Opposition and Motion to Dismiss Arron D. Neal’s Reply to
Plaintiff(s) Memorandum (ECF No. 27) is hereby DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to all parties.

/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4