Servantes et al v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc.
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUBEN G. SERVANTES and
ESMERALDA SERVANTES,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
14-CV-13324
vs.
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was filed on October 10,
2014.
Defendant seeks dismissal of all three counts asserted in Plaintiffs’
complaint. Plaintiffs have neither filed a response in opposition to the motion, nor
have they requested an extension of time in which to do so. The time to file a
response under E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(1) has expired.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the complaint and Defendant’s motion
to dismiss, and will dispense with oral argument. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). The
Court will grant Defendant’s motion for the following reasons.
The Court dismisses count one, alleging that Defendant breached an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing by disingenuously negotiating loss
mitigation assistance with Plaintiffs, because “Michigan does not recognize a claim
for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Belle Isle Grill
Corp. v. City of Detroit, 256 Mich. App. 463, 476, 666 N.W.2d 271, 279-80 (Mich.
Ct. App. 2003). The Court dismisses count two, alleging that Defendant made
false statements of fact to induce Plaintiffs to refrain from defending the
foreclosure, because the allegations of fraud are not pled with sufficient
particularity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); Frank v. Dana Corp., 547 F.3d 564, 570
(6th Cir. 2008). Finally, the Court dismisses count three, alleging that Defendant
violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by prematurely
abandoning the loss mitigation process with Plaintiffs in violation of 12 C.F.R. §
1024.39-41, because the principal relief sought by Plaintiffs – to stay or set aside
the sheriff’s sale or, alternatively, to permit the matter to proceed to judicial
foreclosure – is unavailable to them under RESPA. See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41
(providing that the provisions this section may be enforced under 12 U.S.C. §
2605(f)); 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f) (authorizing monetary damages only; specifically,
actual damages resulting from RESPA violation and, in the case of “a pattern or
practice of noncompliance,” statutory damages not to exceed $2000). To the
extent Plaintiffs may wish to proceed with a RESPA claim for monetary damages
2
only, the Court dismisses the claim because Plaintiffs have not alleged that
Defendant’s alleged violations of 12 C.F.R. § 1024.39-41 resulted in actual
damages, see Drew v. Kemp-Brooks, 802 F. Supp. 2d 889, 898 (E.D. Mich. 2011)
(to successfully plead RESPA violation under § 2605(f), plaintiff must allege
actual damages resulting from the RESPA violation), and Plaintiffs have not pled
“a pattern or practice of noncompliance.”
For these reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the
case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 10, 2014
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Thomas A. Balinski, Esq.
Samantha L. Walls, Esq.
Michael J. Blalock, Esq.
3
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?