Thames v. Nation Star Mortgage, LLC
OPINION and ORDER Granting Defendant NationStar Mortgage LLC's 11 Motion for More Definite Statement (More Definite Statement due by the Plaintiff by 5/1/2017). Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil Case No. 17-10421
Honorable Linda V. Parker
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE LLC’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Plaintiff initiated this pro se action against Defendant on February 7, 2017,
by submitting a completed “Complaint for a Civil Case” form provided by the
Court. Plaintiff describes his claim as arising from a mortgage he obtained from
Defendant in the amount of $102,500.00, which Plaintiff claims Defendant refused
to modify “in order to illegally foreclose on [P]laintiff’s property.” (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff also states that Defendant “denied “[P]laintiff proper notice of
foreclosure.” (Id.) On March 15, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for more definite
statement. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, although his
response was due on or before April 3, 2017.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that “[a] party may move for
a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed
but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a
response.” The rule requires the movant to “point out the defects complained of
and the details desired.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). It further states that “[i]f the court
orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after
notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike the
pleading or issue any other appropriate order.” Id.
In its motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint is deficient
because it fails to allege a violation of any federal or state statute, rule or
regulation, or any violation of common law. Defendant also points out that
Plaintiff does not identify the property at issue or attach or provide any identifying
information about the mortgage at issue. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff
does not identify the notices to which he claims he was entitled to receive, but did
not receive, or why he believes the denial of a loan modification was wrongful.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Complaint is lacking in sufficient detail to
allow Defendant to respond. Plaintiff needs to inform Defendant of the property
foreclosed, information enabling Defendant to identify the mortgage at issue,
reasons why Plaintiff claims the denial of his request for a loan modification was
unlawful, and the notices he believes he should have received but did not.
Defendant should provide at least the approximate dates of when he obtained the
mortgage, when the property was foreclosed, when he sought a loan modification,
and when the request was denied. In light of the many wrongful foreclosure cases
that homeowners have filed in the last nine years, the Court anticipates that
Defendant’s counsel is capable of discerning the law this pro se Plaintiff is
claiming Defendant violated (or of concluding that Plaintiff fails to establish the
violation of any law).
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement
(ECF No. 11) is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of this Order,
Plaintiff shall file a more definite statement providing the details set forth above.
Plaintiff’s failure to comply by such time may result in the Court dismissing
Plaintiff’s cause of action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, without further notice.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 17, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 17, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
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?