Binford et al v. Bank of America et al
OPINION AND ORDER Adopting, In Part, 17 the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Granting 11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and Overruling 20 Plaintiffs' Objections. (Amended Complaint due by 10/11/2011). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
EDDIE BINFORD, JR. and
Civil Action No.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
JOHN ADAMS MORTGAGE, et. al.,
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING, IN PART, THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DKT. 17), GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 11), AND OVERRULLING
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS (DKT. 20)
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen (Dkt. 17), entered on August 23, 2011, regarding the motion
to dismiss filed by Defendant John Adams Mortgage Company (“John Adams”) (Dkt. 11).1
Plaintiffs Eddie Binford, Jr. and Geraldine Williams brought this action in state court against a
number of financial institutions and representatives thereof following the January 5, 2010
foreclosure sale of their Southfield, Michigan residence. Bank of America, Countrywide, and
MERS removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) on June 17, 2010.
The Magistrate Judge recommends in his R&R granting the motion and dismissing all
claims against John Adams. Plaintiff objected to the R&R (Dkt. 20).
Defendants Bank of America, NA (“Bank of America”), Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
(“Countrywide”), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) filed their own
motion to dismiss (Dkt. 10), and the Magistrate Judge issued a separate Report and
Recommendation regarding this motion (Dkt. 16). Accordingly, the Court has issued a separate
Opinion and Order regarding the other motion (Dkt. 21).
The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ objections as not being in compliance with the rule
established in this circuit that objections must be specific. Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932
F.2d 505, 508-509 (6th Cir. 1991) (general objection is the equivalent of a failure to object).
Plaintiffs’ objections consist of (i) conclusory allegations that were expressly rejected in the
R&R and for which Plaintiffs have provided no support, and (ii) statements that fail to state with
any particularity a legally cognizable objection. Even giving Plaintiffs the extra latitude afforded
to pro se litigants, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ statements raise no cognizable basis for
rejecting the R&R.
As to the merits of Defendant’s motion, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge reached
the correct conclusions recommending that Defendant’s motion be granted, and for the proper
reasons, except with respect to whether the dismissal of claims should be with or without
prejudice. The Magistrate Judge properly concluded a number of claims were time-barred. Thus
the claims under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, Home Ownership and
Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1639, and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, should be dismissed with prejudice. Moreover, as Defendant is
exempted by statue from the Michigan Consumers Protection Act (“MCPA”), Mich. Comp.
Laws § 445.901 et seq., Plaintiffs claim under the MCPA should be dismissed with prejudice as
well. However, other claims were dismissed based on a failure to plead sufficiently. These
claims include claims pleaded in Count IV and any claim for fraud, fraudulent conspiracy,
wrongful foreclosure, and racketeering, which the Magistrate Judge interpreted as a claim under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.
These should be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court orders that the R&R (Dkt. 17) is adopted in part; Defendant John
Adams Mortgage Company’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) is granted; and all claims against
Defendant John Adams Mortgage Company are dismissed with prejudice, except those claims
pleaded in Count IV and any claim for fraud, fraudulent conspiracy, wrongful foreclosure and
violation of RICO, which are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs may serve and file an
amended complaint within 14 days of the entry of this Opinion and Order. The failure to serve
and file an amended complaint by that date will automatically convert the dismissal of Count IV
and any claim for fraud, fraudulent conspiracy, wrongful foreclosure and violation of RICO to a
dismissal with prejudice.
Dated: September 27, 2011
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 27, 2011.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
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?