Taylor v. AMS Servicing et al
Filing
70
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 69 Judgment. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 1/30/2014. (lpm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
CHANDRA TAYLOR
PLAINTIFF
V.
NO.: 3:13CV90-MPM-SAA
AMS SERVICING, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
Memorandum Opinion
This cause comes before the court on numerous motions by multiple defendants in this
action. The following motions are pending before the court:
Doc. 7- Motion to Dismiss by Realty Title & Escrow Co.
Doc. 33- Motion to Dismiss by Equifirst Corp.
Doc. 38- Motion to Dismiss by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.
Doc. 41- Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint by Equifirst Corp.
Doc. 42- Motion to Dismiss by Shapiro & Massey, LLC.
Doc. 52- Motion to Consolidate Cases by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed claims in regards to the foreclosure of her
home, and has previously filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [Doc 50] of this lawsuit.1 The
court reopened the case pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff also filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Mississippi on June 19, 2012,
alleging similar causes of action regarding the same subject property and loans. See Chandra
Taylor v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al, 2:12cv107-SA. AMS Servicing and Lex Special
Assets LLC, are defendants in the present lawsuit but were not listed as defendants in the first
action. Otherwise, all the parties are the same in both lawsuits filed by Ms. Taylor.
1
The court liberally construes the pleadings filed by a pro se plaintiff. However, the court is not required to search
for, or try to create, causes of action for the plaintiff.
Judge Aycock dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice by an order dated
February 7, 2013 but did not exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims contained in the
complaint. After reconsidering her order, Judge Aycock also dismissed plaintiff’s state law
claims with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) on January 24, 2014.
For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s cause of action is dismissed with prejudice and
this case is closed.
Ms. Taylor uses boilerplate terms and language throughout her complaint to allege
numerous claims against the defendants. The claims include: R.I.C.O. Act violations, consumer
rights violations, contract violations, Sherman Anti-Trust Violations, FDCA Violations, I.R.S.
Tax Law Violations, Title of Nobility Violations, I.S.A. Violations, DBA Violations, 1792
Coinage Act Violations, and Theft of Stolen Property among others.
A plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929
(2007). A complaint that merely “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement” will not suffice under Rule 12(b)(6). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks, alterations and citation omitted).
The pleadings in this case are not “enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Twombly, at 555. Although Ms. Taylor was granted an opportunity to amend her
complaint, the pleadings do not satisfy the requirements to survive a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ms. Taylor’s earlier suit in this court raised the same issues and included similar parties
as the present action. Further, Ms. Taylor received confirmation of her Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
Plan on May 15, 2007. The Bankruptcy plan identified the loans that are at issue in this lawsuit
as secured claims against her bankruptcy estate. Plaintiff did not contest or dispute her obligation
under the loans, or identify any contingent or unliquidated claims against any of the defendants.
Therefore, even assuming Ms. Taylor was able to raise a right to relief in her pleadings, her
claims would be barred by res judicata.2
Accordingly, all defendants are dismissed with prejudice and a separate order shall be
issued pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 30th day of January, 2014.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
2
The court does not address each element of res judicata due to the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims as stated above.
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?