King et al v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/22/2017. (c/m 9/22/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOllthem Dh'iIioll
1011 SEP 22 ~ I: 51:
LAZINA KING, et al.,
*
Plaintiffs,
*
v,
Case No.: G,III-I6-3-t89
*
CALIBER
HOME LOANS, INC.,
*
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
This is an action brought by Plaintiffs
*
*
fiJreciosure and subsequcnt
foreclosure
they were also working with the Kings on a loan modilication
proceedings
package.
Caliber
salc of PlaintilTs'
ECF NO.1 at 3.1 Plaintiffs allegc that Caliber "dual-tracked"
that is. at the same time that Caliber was initiating
*
OI'INION
Lazina amI Ria King against Defendant
Ilome Loans. Inc, ("'Caliber'"). arising out ofthc
home by Calibcr.
*
*
their mortgage:
against the Kings.
Plaintiffs seek $50
million from Caliber under a variety of state and federal legal claims. Id. at 10. Presently pending
before the Court is Defendant's
necessary.
Motions to Dismiss. ECF NO.4. ECF No. 172 No hearing is
See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following reasons. Defendants'
Motion to
Dismiss is granted.
I Pin cites to documents
filed on the Court"s electronic tiling system (CM/ECF) refer to the page Ilumbers generated
by that system.
~ Caliber's first Motion to Dismiss. ECF NO.4. was partially granted by the Federal District Court for the District of
D.C. and the case was transferred to thisjurisdictioll. However. as discussed below. that court did not address the
substantive issues. which Caliher re-raised in its second Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 17. To thc c.xtent the lirst
Motion to Dismiss is still pending on the docket. the Court addresses both Illotions together here.
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Back::round
In 1996.l'laintilTLazina
King purchased the home located at 141 N.lluron
Drive. Oxon
Hill. MD. ECr: No. 21 at 3. In May 2007. Ms. King relinaneed the mortgage for her homc
through Benelieial Ilomeowncr Scrvice Corp. (""l3enelicial"")and added her daughter. Ria King.
to the mortgage. Ill. In March 2013. Lazina King became ill and underwent two emergency
surgeries: following these surgeries. thc Kings became delinquent on their mortgage payments.
/d at 4: ECF No. 17-1 at3.ln
February 2014. the Kings. mortgage was transferred to Defendant
Caliber Home Loans. Inc. C.Calibcr".). ECr: No. 21 at 5. A few mnnths later. in April 2014. the
Kings requested that Caliber assist them with loan modilication. and faxed a list of documents to
Caliber on April 9. 2014. ECF No. I at 3. Still waiting for a response. in May 2014. the Kings
called Caliber to check on the status of their modilication application. Caliber told them that their
lile had been e1osed. because there was a cease and desist order listed on the Kings. account. and
Caliber was unable to contact them:' Ill. Caliber subsequently re-opened the Kings. lile. and the
Kings submitled additional documents to Caliber. /d at 4. In June 2014. Caliber sent the Kings a
letler stating that the Kings ... [aiccount is currently able to apply for in-house modilication. short
sale. deed in lieu and repayment plan options:. /d However. on July 15. 2014. the Kings were
informed that their application was again e10sed due to the cease and desist order. Ill. at 6. Again.
Caliber re-opened the Kings. file. and requested additional documents. which the Kings faxed to
Caliber on July 30. 2014. Ill. The Kings did not receive a decision on their loanmodilication.
received a letler dated August 22. 2014. informing them that their house was scheduled to be
sold./d
.\ The Kings maintain thaI they have never sought a cease and desist order against Caliber. nor have they been
provided "proof that such order c:\ists:' ECF No. I at 3.
2
but
On June 3. 2014. a foreclosure suit was initiated in the Circuit Court for Prince George's
County against the Kings. ECF No. 17-4 at I. The Kings' house was sold at auction on
September 19.2014. which was subsequently ratilied by the Circuit Court on February 26. 2015.
!d.
B. I'roccdural
Background
The Kings have raised their allegations and legal claims at every 1e"e1of the Maryland
court system available to them: in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (the "Circuit
Court"). at the Court of Special Appeals. and at the Court of Appeals. The Court brielly
summarizes those proceedings.
I.
Circuit Cnurt
On September 3. 2014. the Kings submitted a letter to the Circuit Court requesting a
hearing to halt the ti)reclosure proceedings on their property. as Caliber had allegedly been
moving forward with the foreclosure proceedings at the same time they were requesting
information from the Kings for a loan modilieation package:~ the court denied that request on
September 16.2014. Iii. at 2. Following the sa!e of their house. on March 25. 2015. the Kings
tiled anothcr Ictter in the Circuit Court requesting an appeal from the foreclosure decision. lOCI'
No. 17-6 at 3-4. On April 17.2015. the Kings Iiled a Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 17-4 at 4. The
Kings tiled an emergency motion to stay their eviction order with the Circuit Court on July 24.
2015. and the motion was denied on August 4. 2015 "for I~lilingto state a valid dcfense or
present a meritorious argumenl." ECF No. 17-4 at 5. On January 20. 2016. the Kings liled
another Emergency Motion to Stay with the Circuit Court. alleging the facts stated above. lOCI'
.J
Although the complaint in this case is not a model of clarity. Plaintiffs raise the same allegation here. contending
that their house would not have heen subjected to ..the auction stages of the foreclosure procc.:ss" were it not for
Defendant's "mismanagement"" and "perjury" related to the loan modification documents. EeF No. I at 9.
,
.'
No. 17-6 at 5. On March 4. 2016. the Cireuit Court stayed the case pending the Kings' appeal.
lOCI'No. 17-4 at 65
2. Court of Special Appeals
While continuing to tile motions in Circuit Court. the Kings tiled a notice of appeal to the
Court of Special Appeals on April 16.2015. lOCI'No. 17-8 at 5. On September 23.2015. the
Kings filed a brief with the Court of Special Appeals. raising the arguments that they raise herc.
ECF No. 4-4 at 13. On February 9. 2016. the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland dismissed
the Kings' appeal. without reaching the merits of the complaint. concluding that thc Kings'
notice of appeal was not liled "within thirty days of the order ratifying the foreclosure sale'" ECF
No. 17-8 at 4-5.
3. Court of Appeals
Additionally. on October 21. 2015. the Kings liled a "Motion to Appeal thc Denial of the
Stay of the Execution of Eviction" with thc Maryland Court of Appeals. also raising the same
arguments they raise here. lOCI'No. 4-4 at I. On November 23.2015. thc Court of Appeals of
Maryland denied the Kings' requests. lOCI'No. 17-7 at 2.
4. Present Case
The Kings tiled their Complaint in this case in the Federal District Court for the District
of Columbia ("D.D.C")
on November 25. 2015. ECF NO.1. Caliber tiled a Motion to Dismiss in
that case. arguing that (J) the Complaint was barred by !"esiudicala and the Rooker-Feldmall
doctrine. (2) venue was improper. and (3) the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which rclief
eould be granted. ECF NO.4. On September 28. 2016. the D.D.C ruled that venue was improper
and ordered the ease transferred to this Court. ECF No. 10. The D.D.C did not reaeh the
remaining merits ofCaliber"s Motion to Dismiss. hi. at 11. which Caliber subsequently re-raised
'following
the Kings' appea!.the
Circuit COUJ1lilied the stay on March 22. 2016. ECf No. 17-4 at 7.
4
be/l)rc this Coul1 as a renewed Motion to Dismiss. ECf No. 17-1. The Kings opposed Calibcr's
Motion. ECf No. 20. and Caliber lilcd a Reply. ECF No. 24."
II.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
To survivc a motion to dismiss under Fcd. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "a complaint must contain
sufficient lactual mattcr. acccpted as true. to 'state a claim to relicfthat is plausiblc on its l(lCe:"
Asherofi \'. Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662. 678 (2009) (citing Be!! Allal/lie
elll/). \'. T\I'oll1bZ\'. 550 U.S, 544.
570 (2007)). "A claim has lacial plausibility whcn thc plaintiffplcads
1(lctual contcnt that allows
thc court to draw the rcasonable infcrencc that the dcfcndant is liable Il)f thc misconduct
alleged:' Iqbal. 556 U,S. at 678, "Threadbare recitals ofthc elements ofa causc of action.
supportcd by mcre conclusory statements. do not sutlice:' Id, (citing TIl'iJ/l/bly. 550 U.S. at 555)
("[Al plaintiJrs obligation to provide thc 'grounds' of his 'cntitle[mentj to relief rcquircs more
thanlabcls and conclusions. and a formulaic rccitation ofa cause of action's elemcnts will not
do:'),
The purposc of Fcd. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "is to test the sufficiency ofa complaint and not
to resolve eontests surrounding the facts. the merits of a claim. or the applicability of dclenscs:'
Presley \'. Cily o!"ClllIrIO/le.ll'i!!e,
464 f,3d 480. 483 (4th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Whcn deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (b)(6). a court
"must accept as truc all of the 1(lctual allegations contained in the eomplaint:' and must "draw all
(, Also pending on the docket is Caliber's Motion for Extension ofTilllc to tile their Reply. EeF No. 22. and the
Kings' Motion to Strike that Reply. ECF No. 25. Caliber's Reply was initially due on or before December 30.2016,
but Caliber requested an extension on December 29. 2016. asking for more time given ..the intervening Christmas
and New Year"s holidays. the fact that no scheduling order has been entered. and that neither party will be
prejudiced ... :. ECF No. 22 at 2. In their Motion to Strike Caliber's Reply. the Kings argue that there was no
extension given to Caliber at the time they filed their Reply. and that the Court should strike the reply as noncompliant with this COUI1"s rules. ECF No. 25 at 2. The Court will grant Caliber"s Motion for Extension. and deny
the Kings" Motion to Strike. Given the timing oflilings (with Christmas and Nev.' Year's intcrvening). and the fact
that the Kings do not allege any prejudice. the Court finds that good cause existed to grant an cxtension. Ilm•...
ever.
the Court notes that Caliber's Reply merely reiterated their previous arguments regarding th~ doctrinc ofr!.',\'
judicata. Thus. even if the Court granted the Kings' Motion to Strike. the holding of this opinion would be the same.
5
reasonable inferences [from those facts 1 in favor of the plainti fr:o £.1. dll /'ol7! dl' NI'II/o/ll's & Co,
\., Kolonlndlls
.. Inc,. 637 F.3d 435. 440 (4th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). The Court need not. however. accept unsupported legal allegations. SI'I' RI'\'l'nl' ,.,
Charll's COlll7!y COII/II/'rs. 882 F.2d 870. 873 (4th Cir. 1(89). legal conclusions couched as
factual allegations. /'apasan
v, Allain. 478 U,S, 265. 286 (1986). or conclusory factual
allegations devoid of any rcference to actual events, Unill'd Black Firl'/ightl'rs
ojNorjillk
",
/Iirst. 604 F,2d 844. 847 (4th Cir. 1(79). Because the Kings arc sell~represented. their lilings arc
liberally construed, SI'I' Erickwn
\., /'a,.,llIs. 551 U.S, 89.94 (2007), But the Court must also
abide by its "aflinnative obligation, .. to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses
from proceeding to trial:' BOllchat v. Baltimorl' Rm'l'ns Foothall Cillh, Inc .. 346 FJd 514. 526
(4th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted).
Accepting the facts as alleged in the Complaint as true. SI'I' A~iz \., Alwlac.
658 F,3d 388.
390 (4th Cir. 2011). when reviewing a motion to dismiss. the Court "may consider documents
attached to the complaint. as well as documents attached to thc motion to dismiss. if they are
intcgral to the complaint and their authenticity is not disputed:' Sposato v. First MarinI'!' Bank.
No. CCB-12-1569. 2013 WL 1308582. at *2 (D. Md, Mar. 28. 2013). The Court mav take
judicial notice of state court documents pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 20 I and 803(8)('1)(1), Whcn a
delendant asscrts that facts outside of the complaint deprive thc court of jurisdiction. the Court
"may considcr evidencc outsidc the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one lor
summary judgment:'
Vl'iasco \.. Gov't oj'/lIllone.l'ia. 370 F.3d 392. 398 (4th Cir. 2(04).
Specilically. in considering a rl'.I'jlldicata defense at thc motion to dismiss stage. a court may
consider the "documents Irom the underlying ease:' Andrews
\', Dml'. 201 F,3d 521. 524 n.1 (4th
Cir. 2(00) ("Although an aflinnative defense such as resjlldicata
(,
may be raised under Rule
12(b)(6) only if it clearly appears on the lace of the complaint. when entertaining a motion to
dismiss on the ground of resjlldicaw.
judicial proceeding \\henthe
a court may take judicial notice of facts from a prior
resjlldica/a
defense raises no disputed issue of tac!.""): /.a/'ll
I'.
.'11111/1'11.1'/
,\for/gage /IIC.. No DKC-16-0145. 2016 WL 3753155. at*1 n.1. *6 (D. Md. July 14.
2016) (considering ""relevant documentation regarding the Property and the liJreclosure
procecding and sale""attached by Defendants to a motion to dismiss to substantiate a claim of res
jlldicata).
III.
DISCUSSION
In their pending Motion to Dismiss. Caliber argues that the Kings' Complaint must be
dismissed because: (I) it is barred by resjlldica/a
and the Rooker-Feld/1/ol1 doctrines: (2) the
Complaint tails to meet the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 8(a) and 12(b)(6): (3)
Plaintiff Ria King does not have standing: (4) the claims tiJr violation of the Truth-in-Lending
Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are time-barred: and. (5) Plaintiffs' claim tiJr
negligence fails because Caliber does not owe them a duty of care. ECF No. 17-1 at 1-2. The
Court agrees that the Kings' claims are barred by the doctrine ofresjlldicaw.
grants the Motion to Dismiss on that basis. See McA/illolI
LLC. No. WMN-II-2048.
I'.
and therefore
Bier/1/an. Geesillg. Ward & Wood
2012 WL 425823. *5 n.6 (D. Me!' Feb. 8, 2012) (""Asthe doctrine of
res judicata operates to bar all claims. the Court need not address the applicability of these
[other] defenses."").
Res.jlldica/a
.
is an affirmative defense. which usuallv does not offer resolution at the
motion-to-dismiss stage. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)( I): see a/so Georgia I'ac. COIISII/1/erI'rod.
I'.
U'
VOII IJrehie Corp .. 710 F.3d 527. 533 (4th Cir. 20f 3). Ilowever. if ""facts suflicient to rule on
7
an affirmative
defense are alleged in the complaint"
the Court may reach the issue. Goodll/an
Resjudicata
prohibits
I'.
or in documents
allaehed to the complaint.
!'l'lIxair. /IIC.. 494 r.3d 458. 464 (4th Cir. :W07).
the relitigation
of mailers pre\'iously
litigated. as well as those
e1aims that could have been asserted and litigated in the original suit. AII)'al1ll'/ltaku \'. Fleet
Mort. Group. 85 F.Supp.2d
'Iitigants
566. 570 (D. Md. 2000). "The doctrine was designed
Irom the burden ofrelitigating
[to promote
I judicial
economy
lVilsoll. 519 F.3d 156. 161-162
322. 326 (1979».
an identical
by preventing
When considering
rederal courts apply that state's
judgment
the same preelusive
in which thc judgmcnt
litigation .... Laurel Sal/(/ & Grm'el. /IIC, I'.
!'arklalle
errect of a prior state judgment
law as"a
requircs that "( I ) the parties in the prcsent litigation are
eurrcnt action is identical to that dctermincd.
Motion to Dismiss.
thc plaintifrs
I'.
stay her eviction.
alleging violations
in the
or that \\'hich could have been raiscd and
LLC
I',
on the merits:'
il/cA/i/lall.
Rice. 938 A.2d 839. 848 (Md.2008».
Bierll/an, Geesilll!,. lVard & lVood U.C. cited by Caliber in its
ECF No. 17-1 at 10. is directly on point. and instructivc
house was foreelosed
Court or Baltimore
(2) thc e1aim presented
and (3) thcre has becn a linaljudgment
2012 WL 425823 at *3 (citing II & D lOO/.
The case or McMillian
undcr the law or the Statc
Migra \'. Warrell City School Dist. Bd of Educ .. 465 U.S.
resjudicata
in prior litigation:
under res
federal court must give to a state-court
thc samc or in privity with thc partics to the earlier litigation:
determincd.
Hosie!)' Co. \'. Shore. 439 U.S.
effect as would be givcn that judgment
was rendered:'
75. 8 I (1984). In Maryland.
(quoting
the preelusive
judicata.
issue with the same party or his privy and
needless
(4th Cir.2008)
to protect
by the defendants.
here. /d In that ease.
sold at auction. and ratified in the Circuit
County. !d. at * I. The plaintifT filed several motions with the Circuit Court to
with no success. !d. The plaintiff subsequently
ofthc
Fair Debt Collection
filcd a complaint
Practiecs Act. and several Maryland
8
in this court.
state
consumer protection statutes. Ill. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds
that it was harred hv res jlldic({{a. as thc claims had bcen (or could have been) raised in the
Circuit Court suit. Id. at *3. The court agrced. reasoning that the plaintilThad "vigorously
opposed the foreclosure" in the Circuit Court. and even "altempted to tile an appeal with the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals. but the appeal was dismissed because it was not timely
liled:' Id. at *3. The court found that each of the clements for res jlldicata was met as: (1) ..the
parties are the same as. or in privity with. the parties in thc loreclosure action:' ill. at *4: (2) "the
causes of action in this casc all relate to actions allegedly taken hy the [d]efcndants with rcspect
to the loreclosurc" and that the plaintilThad "raised some of these issues in the Opposition to
Ratification she filed in the Circuit Court:' ill. at *4: and. (3) ..the foreclosure proceeding is
indisputably a final judgment on the merits of the foreclosure" as the plaintiff"filed
cxceptions.
was afforded multiple hearings. and appealed her case to the Court of Special Appeals:' ill. at *3.
The court further explained that even claims that were nOI raised in the foreclosure proceeding
were harred by resjlldicata.
as "Maryland has adopted a 'transaction test" lor use in determining
what constitutes the same claim for res judicata purposes:' Id. at *4 (quoting Kelll COllllly 1311.
O{
Edllc. V. l3ilhrollgh. 525 A.2d 232 (Md. 1987». Under this test. claims that arise out of the samc
transaction are considered part of the same cause of action. Id. "In detel1l1ining whether the
causes of action stem from the same transaction or series of connected transactions. courts
consider such pragmatic factors as 'whether the facts are rclated in time. space. origin. or
motivation. whether they form a convenient trial unit. and whether their treatment as a unit
confi.mns to the parties' expectations or husiness understanding or usage:" Allyal1ll"lIIakll \'. Fleet
,I/orlg. Grollf'. IlIc .. 85 F. Supp. 2d 566. 571 (D. Md. 2000) (quoting Rcstatcment (Second) of
Judgments
* 24(2) (1982)). In
McMillall.
the court found that the consumer protection claims
9
brought against the foreclosing defendants were part of the same transaction. as they all arose out
of the defendants' conduct leading up to the lorcclosure. McMillall. 2012 WL 425823 at *5.
Herc. as in Ak:vlil/all. the Kings vigorously opposed the foreclosure proceedings onthcir
property by submitting multiple filings with the Circuit Court. thc Court of Special Appeals. and
the Maryland Court of Appeals.7 and raising the same arguments they raise here. As in
:vlcMillall. there was a final dccision by a statc court regarding the Kings' foreclosurc and
subsequent eviction. the panics were thc same or in privity. and the claims being brought here
arise out of the same transaction (the actions by Caliber leading up to and including the
foreclosure of the Kings' home).
The Kings argue that the claims being brought herc "could [notJ have becn brought in the
forcclosure case" as those claims werc not ripe bccause they had not yet "lost thc property'" Id.
at 11. Notwithstanding thc possibility that the Kings may have sulTcred additional damages
since the filing of the state actions. the legal issues have remained the same. The Court linds that
thc claims brought here arise out of the same transaction as the forcclosure proceedings. and state
the samc allegations. As such. the Kings' claims arc barred by the doctrine of resjuili('(l/a. and
will be dismissed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. DelCndant's Motions to Dismiss. lOCI'NO.4. ECF No. 17. is
granted. The Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. ECF No. 22. is
also granted. and the Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Strike the Defendant's Rcply. lOCI'No. 25.
is denied. A separate Ordcr shall issue.
Datc: Septcmber
/1 (v
'\'
11. 2017
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge
7
In McMil/all. the plaintiff did not seek review by the Court of Appeals.
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?