Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 12 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; dismissing 2 Complaint. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 3/7/2016. (bus, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

REGINALD JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Case No. RWT 16cv233

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On December 10, 2015, Plaintiff Reginald Jones filed a Complaint against the Defendant,
Wells Fargo, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County alleging violations of the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA). ECF No. 2. Wells Fargo removed to this Court, ECF No. 1, and shortly
after filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 12. The Court has reviewed the briefings and
determines that no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6.
This is not the parties’ first meeting in this Court. On February 3, 2011, the Court
entered a memorandum opinion and order granting a Motion to Dismiss on the basis of res
judicata. Jones v. HSBC USA, N.A., et al. (Jones I), No. 09-cv-2904 (D. Md. Feb. 3, 2011). This
Court found both claim preclusion and issue preclusion were applicable based on the foreclosure
proceedings. Id. at 5–10.
Jones now claims that the Supreme Court case of Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans,
135 S. Ct. 790 (2015) entitles him to overcome res judicata and litigate his TILA claim, which he
did not bring in the 2011 action. See ECF No. 13, at 1. This argument fails. First, a change in
case law “almost never warrants an exception to the application of res judicata.” Clodfelter v.
Republic of Sudan, 720 F.3d 199, 211 (4th Cir. 2013). Second, Jones does not dispute that this

action is another attempt to collaterally attack his foreclosure, an issue that was decided on the
merits by the state court in 2009. See ECF No. 2 (listing as Jones’ requested declaratory relief
that he “be put back in title to the subject property as sole owner” and that the foreclosure be
voided). As this Court explained in its previous order, “[t]he 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 I, No. 09-cv-2904, at *9 (listing
cases). Jones appears to argue that Jesinoski held that once a borrower submitted his notice of
rescission, the debt was extinguished “by operation of law,” and therefore Wells Fargo “has no
standing to challenge the already valid and effective rescission.” ECF No. 13, at 1. Whether or
not this is the correct interpretation of Jesinoski, the argument provides no assistance to Jones
because his foreclosure has already been litigated twice. Nothing in Jesinoski entitles Jones to a
third try.
Accordingly, it is, this 7th day of March, 2016, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland
ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED; and it is
further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 2] is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.

/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2