The People of the State of Maryland et al v. The Territory of Maryland et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 5/4/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 5/5/17)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF MARYLAND, et al.,

*

Plaintiffs,

*

v.

*

THE TERRITORY OF MARYLAND, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. PX 16-3426

*
*
******

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently pending before the Court are Defendants’ unopposed Motions to Dismiss
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF Nos. 8, 23, and 26).1 The Court now rules pursuant to
Local Rule 105.6 because no hearing is necessary. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
GRANT Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
I.

BACKGROUND2

This matter arises out of foreclosure proceedings in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s
County, Maryland, Case No. CAEF-15-20470 (the “Foreclosure Action”) filed with respect to
the property located at 6711 Sand Cherry Way, Clinton, Maryland 20903 (the “Property”). See
ECF No. 1-1. A copy of the Foreclosure Action docket is attached to this opinion.

1
In accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d. 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Court notified Plaintiffs of
their right to file responsive pleadings with supporting materials. See ECF Nos 15, 24, 27. The deadlines
have passed and the Court has no record that Plaintiffs have filed any responses.
2

In considering Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, the Court relies upon the facts alleged in the Complaint,
materials attached thereto, as well as matters of public record. See Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp.,
572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). All facts are viewed in the light most favorable
to Plaintiffs.

On August 3, 2015, foreclosure proceedings commenced against Plaintiffs Clifford Lee
Massey and Marilyn Lovette Panda-Massey (collectively “Plaintiffs” or the “Masseys”), in the
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. See Foreclosure Action Docket, Entry 1. After related
proceedings to include mediation, the Circuit Court ordered the foreclosure sale. See Foreclosure
Action Docket, Entry 14. Plaintiffs thereafter sought to remove the Foreclosure Action to this
Court. See Ward v. Massey, No. 8:16-cv-01530-DKC. On June 9, 2016, this Court remanded the
Foreclosure Action for want of jurisdiction. See Ward v. Massey, No. DKC 16-1530, 2016 WL
3196679 (D. Md. June 9, 2016).
Then, on September 16, 2016, Plaintiffs proceeding pro se, filed the instant action in the
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland. ECF No. 2, naming corporate defendants
BWW Law Group, GMAC Mortgage, Blank Rome LLP, EverBank, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
(“Chase”), and Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (“Ocwen”), the Territory of Maryland, and
individual defendants Lori Hester, Nicholas Derdock, Jr, Sydney J. Harrison, Melvin C. High,
Larnzell Martin, Jr., James R. Billings-Kang, Judges Mary Ellen Barbera, Leo F. Green, Peter B.
Krauser, Crystal D. Mittlestaedt, Karen H. Masonm and Toni E. Clarke, and Maryland Attorney
General Brian E. Frosh (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants Billings-Kang, Ocwen, and
Everbank then properly removed the action to this Court on October 13, 2016. ECF No. 1.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, although difficult to decipher, alleges that all Defendants acted
improperly in either enforcing an invalid lien or participating in the Foreclosure Action.
Plaintiffs contend that they were gifted the Property when “born under the Maritime Law,
pursuant to Internal Revenue Code 21.7.13.3.2.2.” ECF No. 2 at 1. Plaintiffs further allege that
Defendants Derdock, Chang, and Billings-Kang in the Foreclosure Action filed a fraudulent
summons and complaint because the attorneys did not provide “proof of delegation of authority

2

or jurisdiction of any kind” over Plaintiffs’ estate and thus, the Property. ECF No. 2-3 at 2.
Plaintiffs contend that all Defendants are acting in concert to unlawfully and fraudulently enforce
an invalid lien. ECF No. 2-3 at 2.3 Plaintiffs also claim to bring this action against all Defendants
for “following the orders of a criminal enterprise,” specifically for committing the federal
criminal offense of “breach of public trust/fraud upon the court,” citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and
242, by having “meddled in [their] estate without authorization” as “Executors De Son Tort.”
ECF No. 2 at 1. Plaintiffs seek a Writ of Mandamus, dismissing the Foreclosure Action and
enjoining various state employees from proceeding in the Foreclosure Action. ECF No. 2 at 2.
On October 18, 2016, Billings-Kang, EverBank, and Ocwen filed a joint Motion to
Dismiss. ECF No. 8. On October 27, 2016, BWW Law Group and Derdock also filed a joint
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 23, and Chase filed its Motion to Dismiss on November 4, 2016.
ECF No. 26. For the reasons that follow, the Motions are GRANTED.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the
complaint. Presley v. City of Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, and their Complaint must be
construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, liberal
construction does not absolve Plaintiffs from pleading plausible claims. See Holsey v. Collins, 90
F.R.D. 122, 128 (D. Md. 1981) (citing Inmates v. Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 562–63 (4th Cir. 1977)).
As the Fourth Circuit made clear:

3
According to the docket of the foreclosure action, Derdock and Chang entered their appearances in the
action; Billings-Kang does not appear on that docket, however Billings-Kang represented the substitute
trustees in this Court after Plaintiffs attempted to remove the case. See Carrie M. Ward, et al., v. Clifford
L. Massey et al., No. 8:16-cv-01530-DKC.
3

It is neither unfair nor unreasonable to require a pleader to put his
complaint in an intelligible, coherent, and manageable form, and
his failure to do so may warrant dismissal. Corcoran v. Yorty, 347
F.2d 222, 223 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 966 (1965); Holsey
v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 128 (D. Md. 1981). District courts are
not required to be mind readers, or to conjure questions not
squarely presented to them. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d
1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
Harris v. Angliker, 955 F.2d 41, 1992 WL 21375, at *1 (4th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
When ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must “accept the well-pled
allegations of the complaint as true,” and “construe the facts and reasonable inferences derived
therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474
(4th Cir. 1997). “The mere recital of elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory
statements, is not sufficient to survive a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).” Walters v.
McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009)). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint’s factual allegations “must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the
complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (internal citations omitted). “To satisfy this standard, a plaintiff need not ‘forecast’
evidence sufficient to prove the elements of the claim. However, the complaint must allege
sufficient facts to establish those elements.” Walters, 684 F.3d at 439 (citation omitted). “Thus,
while a plaintiff does not need to demonstrate in a complaint that the right to relief is ‘probable,’
the complaint must advance the plaintiff’s claim ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible.’”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim, and where the face of a complaint plainly fails to state a claim for relief,
the district court has “no discretion but to dismiss it.” Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648,
655 n.10 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted).
4

When a plaintiff alleges fraud or “the gravamen of the claim is fraud even though the
theory supporting the claim is not technically termed fraud,” Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that such claims be pleaded with particularity. Haley v. Corcoran, 659
F. Supp. 2d 714, 721 (D. Md. 2009) (quoting Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., 193 F.R.D. 243, 250
(D. Md. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)). To satisfy this standard, plaintiffs “must, at a minimum,
describe the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the
person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby.” United States ex rel. Wilson
v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 379 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “These facts are often referred to as the ‘who, what, when, where, and how’ of
the alleged fraud.” Id. (quoting United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex.
Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 384 (5th Cir. 2003)). This requirement affords the Defendants notice of the
basis for the plaintiff’s claim, safeguards against frivolous suits, and minimizes the risk of
unwarranted damage to the defendant’s reputation. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River
Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Fraud allegations that fail to comply
with Rule 9(b) must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 783 n.5.
III.

DISCUSSION

A. Claims on behalf of “The People of the State of Maryland, ex. rel.”
The Complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of “The People of the State of
Maryland, ex. rel.” for “the benefit of the public trust.” ECF No. 2-3 at 1. Pro se individuals
“may only represent themselves” in actions before this Court. Local Rule 101(a). Accord Myers
v. Loudoun Cty. Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (affirming district court dismissal
of complaint and holding that father had no right to litigate claim pro se on behalf of his
children); Fowler v. Lee, 18 F. App’x 164 (4th Cir. 2001) (pro se litigant cannot represent a

5

class); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (same). Thus, all claims on
behalf of “The People of the State of Maryland” are dismissed.
B. Violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants committed criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and
242. 18 U.S.C. § 241 prohibits two or more persons conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate” any person “in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him
by the Constitution or laws of the United States,” while 18 U.S.C. § 242 prohibits deprivation of
any rights or privileges protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States “on account of
such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race.” Neither provides a civil cause of
action. See Grant v. Prince George’s Cty. Dep’t, No. DKC 15-2433, 2016 WL 3541239, at *5
(D. Md. June 29, 2016) (“It is beyond the court’s purview in this civil matter to provide relief
under criminal statutes.”) (citing United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979)
(“Whether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that
generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion.”)) (dismissing claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242);
see also Robertson v. Foster, No. ELH-16-3610, 2017 WL 1104664, at *6 (D. Md. Mar. 23,
2017) (dismissing civil claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242). Accordingly, these claims must be
dismissed.
C. The Invalidity of the Lien and the Jurisdiction of the Maryland State Court over
the Foreclosure Action
Plaintiffs’ individual claims arise from their basic contention that the lien giving rise to
the foreclosure proceedings on their real property is invalid. Plaintiffs refer to an array of
divergent and disconnected legal theories, including that they were gifted an estate when “born
under the Maritime Law, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code 21.7.13.3.2.2,” which concerns the

6

tax treatment of infant decedents who do not yet have a social security number.4 ECF No. 2 at 1;
see also ECF No. 2-4 at 2–3. Further, according to Plaintiffs, any action to enforce the lien is
unlawful due to lack of jurisdiction over the Property. ECF No. 2-3 at 2.
This reference to the IRS manual, like Plaintiffs’ other allegations, does nothing to upset
the validity of a lien or a state court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate a foreclosure action. “The subject
matter of mortgage foreclosure in Maryland has always been within the ordinary jurisdictional
power of the equity courts, independently of any consent by the mortgagor, or provisions of the
mortgage.” Saunders v. Stradley, 25 Md. App. 85, 91 (1975); accord id. at 95 (“[T]he delivery of
the order to the clerk . . . gives the equity court jurisdiction over the mortgaged property when a
power of sale is being exercised.”). Likewise, reference to Maritime Law does nothing to
advance Plaintiffs’ claims. At bottom, Plaintiffs have provided no substantive allegations that
would implicate the legality of foreclosure on the Property following default on the mortgage
loan. See Okoro v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. PX 16-0616, 2016 WL 5870031, at *11 (D. Md.
Oct. 6, 2016), aff’d, No. 16-2274, 2017 WL 1291278 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2017); Marchese v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 2d 452, 464 (D. Md. 2013). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’
claims challenging the validity of the lien fail as a matter of law.5

4
Because this section of the Internal Revenue Code does not exist, the Court will construe the Complaint
as referring to Section 21.7.13.3.2.2 of the Internal Revenue Manual. This section of the Internal Revenue
Manual, entitled “Taxpayer Identification Number,” provides that “[t]here will be rare occasions” where a
grantor or custodian of a domestic trust/estate will not have a social security number, including when
“[a]n infant is the decedent of an estate or grantor, owner, custodian or trustor of a trust, guardianship,
receivership or custodianship that has yet to receive a [social security number].” Internal Revenue
Manual, 21.7.13.3.2.2 - Taxpayer Identification Number (Form SS-4, Line 7b or Line 9a) (05-31-2016).
5

The frivolity of Plaintiffs’ allegations alone is a basis for dismissal. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 32 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level
of the irrational or the wholly incredible . . . .”); McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir.
2009) (“Examples of frivolous claims include those whose factual allegations are ‘so nutty,’ ‘delusional,’
or ‘wholly fanciful’ as to be simply ‘unbelievable.’”); Cush-El v. State, No. 1:16-CV-176, 2016 WL
1212427, at *2 (M.D.N.C. 10 Mar. 2016) (recommending dismissal of complaint wherein “[p]laintiff
7

D.

RICO Claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962

Liberally construing the Complaint, Plaintiffs also assert that all Defendants violated the
civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., by “engag[ing] in acting under the color of law
either indirectly or direct by following the orders of a criminal enterprise” through participating
the Foreclosure Action. ECF No. 2 at 1. To sustain a civil RICO claim, Plaintiffs must allege a
pattern of racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt. See 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a).
Specifically, “a pattern of racketeering activity,” constitutes at least two enumerated predicate
acts of criminal conduct set forth in § 1961(1). See Sparrow v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. CIV. JFM14-0388, 2014 WL 4388350, at *7 (D. Md. Sept. 4, 2014) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1341; 18 U.S.C. §
1342; 18 U.S.C. § 1956, § 1957, et seq.), aff’d sub nom., 600 F. App’x 187 (4th Cir. 2015).
Plaintiffs fail to aver that Defendants committed any of the enumerated predicates act
under § 1961(1). Plaintiffs’ claims of common law fraud will not suffice. Id. (citing Cofacredit,
S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., 187 F.3d 229, 242 (2d. Cir. 1999)). The only other
plausible asserted legal theory would be that the foreclosure action constitutes collection of an
unlawful debt. However, section 1961(6) makes plain that the claimed “unlawful debt” must be
“(A) . . . unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to the principal or
interest because of the laws relating to usury, and (B) which was incurred in connection with . . .
the business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law,
where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(6); see Day v.
DB Capital Group, LLC, No. DKC–10–1658, 2011 WL 887554, at *13 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2013)
(citing Proctor v. Metro. Money Store Corp., 645 F. Supp. 2d 464, 481 (D. Md. 2009)).

recites claims that consist largely of incomprehensible ramblings composed of commercial and legal
doctrines”), rep. & recomm. adopted, 2016 WL 1228626 (Mar. 28, 2016).
8

Plaintiffs’ Complaint is devoid of any facts supporting that the mortgage debt on the Property
meets the requirement of § 1961(c). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ RICO claims cannot be sustained.
E.

“Executor De Son Tort”

Plaintiffs claim that by “meddling” in their estate without authorization, all Defendants
are “Executors De Son Tort.” ECF No. 2 at 1. An executor de son tort is one who interferes with
a decedent’s estate absent lawful authority and performs acts properly belonging to the estate’s
administrator. See 10 M.L.E. Executors and Administrators § 210; see generally Safe Deposit &
Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Coyle, 133 Md. 343, 105 A. 308, 310 (1918); Rockwell v. Young, 60
Md. 563, 567 (1883). This legal concept has no place here because this action does not involve
the administration of a decedent’s estate, let alone an executor’s unauthorized intermeddling.
Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims of executor de son tort also fail.
F.

Fraud

Plaintiffs also generally claim fraud regarding false representations in the foreclosure
proceedings. ECF No. 2-3 at 2–3, but fail to state the claim with particularity. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
9(b). Specifically, Plaintiffs do not set out “the time, place, and contents of the false
representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he
obtained thereby.” Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 (4th Cir.
1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the claims sounding in fraud
are dismissed.
G.

Writ of Mandamus

Plaintiffs petition the Court for a writ of mandamus against all Defendants, “as public
officials, and agents to the United States,” (1) seeking an injunction against the Circuit Court for
Prince George’s County for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) demanding dismissal and quashing of

9

service of process of the Summons and Complaint filed in the Foreclosure Action. ECF No. 2-3
at 1–2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any
action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any
agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Accordingly, this Court’s authority to
issue a writ of mandamus extends only to federal officers, employees, or agencies. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1361; AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. Winston–Salem Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 172 F.3d 307,
312 (4th Cir. 1999). The Court is without the power to compel, via writ of mandamus, any of the
Defendants in this action, as they are state officials, private individuals, or private corporations.
Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (state
officials); Simon v. Court Reporter, No. C/A 9:09-893-CMC-BM, 2009 WL 2029978, at *2
(D.S.C. July 13, 2009) (private individual); Skelton v. Family Servs., Inc., No. C.A. 2:09847MBS, 2009 WL 1346133, at *4 (D.S.C. May 8, 2009) (private company). The Court
therefore denies Plaintiffs’ request for a writ of mandamus.
H.

Dismissal of all Defendants

A number of individually named Defendants have failed to participate in this action, and
after reviewing the Complaint, their non-participation is sound. Where, as here, a Plaintiff
plainly fails to allege facts in a complaint setting forth a plausible claim for relief against a
defendant, a district court may sua sponte dismiss the defendant from the case. Weller v. Dep’t of
Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d
648, 655 n.10 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A] district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure
to state a claim. . . . Where the face of a complaint plainly fails to state a claim for relief, a
district court has ‘no discretion’ but to dismiss it.”) (citing 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice
& Procedure § 1357 (2d ed. 1990)); Taylor v. Acxiom Corp., 612 F.3d 325, 340 (5th Cir. 2010)

10

(“While the district court did dismiss sua sponte some defendants who did not join the motion to
dismiss, there is no prejudice to the plaintiffs in affirming the judgment in its entirety because the
plaintiffs make the same allegations against all defendants.”). Because the Plaintiffs’ plead
identical allegations against all named Defendants in an equally deficient manner, the Complaint
will be dismissed in its entirety.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, this Court will GRANT the Defendants’ motions to dismiss and will
DISMISS this case. A separate order will follow.

5/4/2017
Date

/S/
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge

11

5/1/2017

Case Information

Circuit Court of Maryland
Go Back Now

Case Information

Court System:Circuit Court for Prince George's County ­ Civil System
Case Number:CAEF15­20470
Case Description:WBGLMC vs Massey
Case Type:Property
Filing Date:08/03/2015
Case Status:Reopen
Defendant/Respondent Information

Party Type: Defendant Party No.: 2
Name: Clifford L Massey
Address: 6711 Sand Cherry Way
City:
Clinton State: MD Zip Code: 20735
Party Type: Defendant Party No.: 3
Name: Marilyn L. Panda­Massey
Address: 6711 Sand Cherry Lane
City:
Clinton State: MD Zip Code: 20735

Attorney Information
Name:
Attorney Type:
Address:
City:
Name:
Attorney Type:
Address:
City:

Edward W Chang
Attorney
State: Zip Code:
Nicholas Derdock
Attorney
BWW Law Group LLC
Rockville State: MD Zip Code: 20852

Other Party Information

Party Type: Substitute Trustee Party No.: 1
Name: Ward, Bierman, Geesing, Lele, Monto and Coleman
Dockets

(Each Document listed. Documents are listed in Document No./Sequence No. order)
Date:
08/03/2015
Document Name: CaseType: Foreclos of Deed Tr
Docket Text:
Date:
08/03/2015
Document Name: Forclsure Eligible for Mediatn
Docket Text:
Date:
Document
Name:

08/03/2015

Docket Text:

001 Proceeding to forc d/t on liber31964 folio619 with attachments FD/RJA
08/04/2015

Order To Docket Foreclosure Fd

Date:
08/03/2015
Document Name: Forclsure/Prel Loss Mitgtn Aff
Docket Text:
002 FD/RJA 08/04/2015
Date:

08/18/2015

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryByCaseNum.jis

1/3

5/1/2017

Case Information

Document Name: Affidavit of Service, fd
Docket Text:
004 fd. kbp e 8­21­15
Date:
08/26/2015
Document Name: Answer filed
Docket Text:
007 fd./va E;9/3/15 tagged for civil paralegal
Date:
08/26/2015
Document Name: Proof of Service, Filed.
Docket Text:
008 as to Carrie M. Ward,fd./va E;9/3/15
Date:
08/24/2015
Document Name: Line, filed
Docket Text:
005 Third Party Intervention,fd./va E;9/3/15 Tagged civil paralegal
Date:
08/24/2015
Document Name: Proof of Service, Filed.
Docket Text:
006 as to Carrie M. Ward,./va e;9/3/15
Date:
08/03/2015
Document Name: Not:Substitution of Parties,fd
Docket Text:
003 substitution of trustee,fd./va E;9/22/15
Date:
Document
Name:

10/07/2015

Docket Text:

009 Defendant's Answer to Complaint reviewed in the chambers of Toni Clarke, No action
required,fd.acc

Read by Chambers/No Action Req

Date:
10/21/2015
Document Name: Forclsure/Finl Loss Mitgtn Aff
Docket Text:
010 fd/keh 10/26/2015
Date:
11/02/2015
Document Name: Forclsure/Mot Req for Mediatin
Docket Text:
011 fd,amk
Date:
12/17/2015
Document Name: Forclsure/Med Comp No Agrmnt
Docket Text:
012 fd,amk
Date:
12/24/2015
Document Name: Forclsure/Mediation Reprt Recd
Docket Text:
013 fd,amk
Date:
01/06/2016
Document Order of Court, filed
Name:
014 Order of Court dated 01/04/16, Judge Mittelstaedt, Ordered, that the secured party may
Docket
schedule the foreclosure sale, subject to the right of the borrower to file a motion pursuant
Text:
to rule 14­211 to stay the sale and dismiss the action,fd.amk cc n derdock esq, c massey, m
panda­massey
Date:
01/29/2016
Document Name: Notice, filed
Docket Text:
015 ljs,e2­4­16 Notice of Citizenship (Civil Paralegal)
Date:
01/29/2016
Document Name: Notice, filed
Docket Text:
016 ljs,e2­4­16 Notice of Assumed Name Certification (Civil Paralegal)
Date:
05/17/2016
Document Name: Notice of Removal, fd
Docket Text:
017 fd.mdm e 5­18­16
Date:
06/23/2016
Document Name: Line, filed
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryByCaseNum.jis

2/3

5/1/2017

Case Information

Docket Text:

018 fd.rg writ of error e07­01­16

Date:
06/24/2016
Document Name: Line, filed
Docket Text:
019 Revocation of power of attorney fd.kss e07/05
Date:
06/27/2016
Document Name: Line, filed
Docket Text:
020 Writ of error fd.kss e07/12
Date:
06/30/2016
Document Name: Line, filed
Docket Text:
021 writ of error fd.kss e07/12
Date:
07/11/2016
Document Name: Letter, filed.
Docket Text:
022 Letter from the United State District Court, District of Maryland fd.kss e07/12
Date:
07/12/2016
Document Name: Reopen: Ord Remand US DC,fd
Docket Text:
Date:
07/12/2016
Document Name: Line Entering Appearance, Fd.
Docket Text:
023 entering appearance of James R. Billings­Kang for Plaintiffs fd.mdm e 07/15/16
Date:
07/12/2016
Document Name: Opp: Pet:Writ of Err CoNob, fd
Docket Text:
024 opposition to writ of error fd.mdm e 07/15/16
Date:
Document
Name:
Docket
Text:

08/12/2016
Substitution of Counsel, fd
025 entering appearance of Edward Chang of Blank Rome LLP for Plaintiffs and strike
appearance of James R. Billings­Kang fd.mdm e 08/15/16

Date:
06/30/2016
Document Name: Line, filed
Docket Text:
026 writ of error fd.mdm e 08/15/16
Date:
09/01/2016
Document Name: Line, filed
Docket Text:
027 judicial notice fd.mdm e 09/06/16
Date:
09/09/2016
Document Name: Bond Approved and Filed.
Docket Text:
028 bond no. L184854 fd.mdm e 09/13/16
Date:
09/13/2016
Document Name: Line, filed
Docket Text:
029 mandatory judicial notice fd.mdm e 09/15/16
This is an electronic case record. Full case information cannot be made available either because of legal restrictions
on access to case records found in Maryland Rules, or because of the practical difficulties inherent in reducing a
case record into an electronic format.

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryByCaseNum.jis

3/3