Cantrell et al v. Capital One, N.A.

Filing 35

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Capital One's Motion to Dismiss, 4 , is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Complaint, 1 , is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/26/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

JUNE M. CANTRELL, FREDDIE
CANTRELL, JR.,

5

Plaintiffs,
vs.

6
7

CAPITAL ONE, N.A.,

8

Defendant.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-2023-GMN-GWF
ORDER

10

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 4), filed by Defendant
11

Capital One, N.A. (“Capital One”). Pro se Plaintiffs Freddie Cantrell, Jr. and June M. Cantrell

12

filed a response in opposition, (ECF No. 12), and Capital One replied, (ECF No. 14). For the
13

reasons set forth herein, Capital One’s Motion will be granted, and this case will be dismissed.
14

I.

BACKGROUND

15

This case centers upon allegations that Capital One wrongfully foreclosed upon
16

Plaintiffs’ residence, located at 2717 Saint Clair Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 (the
17

“Property”). See (Compl., ECF No. 1).1 On October 1, 2004, Plaintiffs obtained a mortgage

18

loan, which was secured by a Deed of Trust on the Property. (Id. ¶ 6). Plaintiffs allege that
19

Capital One foreclosed upon the Property on May 27, 2015. (Id. ¶ 24). Plaintiffs also allege
20

that Capital One committed numerous acts of fraud and forgery, and that the Deed of Trust was
21

illegally transferred prior to the foreclosure sale. See generally (Compl.).
22

Based on these allegations, the Complaint purports to allege the following causes of
23

action: (1) slander of title, (2) quiet title, (3) wrongful foreclosure, (4) civil conspiracy, (5)
24
25

1

In light of Plaintiffs’ status as pro se litigants, the Court has liberally construed their filings, holding them to
standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007).

Page 1 of 4

1

Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) violations, (6) predatory lending practices, (7) fraudulent

2

appraisal, (8) breach of contract, (9) fraudulent concealment, (10) breach of the implied

3

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (11) breach of fiduciary duty, and (12) Fair Debt

4

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) violations. (Id.).

5

The Court notes that Plaintiffs recently filed another case against Capital One based

6

upon strikingly similar allegations that is currently pending before the Court. See Cantrell v.

7

Capitol One, N.A., No. 2:15-CV-0257-GMN-VCF, 2016 WL 917312 (D. Nev. Mar. 7, 2016)

8

(“Cantrell I”). In the instant Motion, Capital One argues that this case should be dismissed

9

pursuant to the doctrine against claim splitting.

10

II.

DISCUSSION

11

The doctrine against claim splitting exists to protect defendants from being harassed by

12

repetitive actions based on the same claim. Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cty., 69 F.3d

13

321, 328 (9th Cir. 1995). Pursuant to this doctrine, “[A] court should dismiss for improper

14

claim-splitting any claims filed by the same party as affirmative claims in an earlier action and

15

which would be precluded in the later case were there a final judgment on the merits on the

16

claims in the earlier case.” Henderson v. Bonaventura, 994 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1112 (D. Nev.

17

2014); see also Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212, 1218 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he test for claim

18

splitting is not whether there is finality of judgment, but whether the first suit, assuming it were

19

final, would preclude the second suit.”). “After weighing the equities of the case, the district

20

court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative later-filed action, to stay that action

21

pending resolution of the previously filed action, to enjoin the parties from proceeding with it,

22

or to consolidate both actions.” Adams v. California Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688

23

(9th Cir. 2007) overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008); see

24

also Katz, 655 F.3d at 1217 (“District courts have discretion to control their dockets by

25

dismissing duplicative cases.”).

Page 2 of 4

1

Review of the complaint filed in Cantrell I quickly reveals that these two cases are based

2

largely on identical allegations. Indeed, several sections of the Complaint in this case appear to

3

be directly copied from the complaint in Cantrell I. For example, both complaints allege:

4

Defendants victimized Plaintiffs with a predatory loan, with

5

all the elements previously described, at the loan closing when

6

Plaintiffs purchased their home at 2717 Saint Clair Drive.

7

Defendants never informed Plaintiffs of their TILA-Right to

8

Rescission at any time and that is the ultimate civil conspiracy . . .

9

The mortgage was based on a fraudulent appraisal, we know

10

that because Plaintiffs home was purchased for $425,000 and its

11

value is approximately only half of that amount. . . .

12

The answer to the obvious question of how to remedy massive

13

foreclosures happening all across America has been known all

14

along by these frauds and predators in the mortgage industry. But

15

the answer has been intentionally withheld from homeowners

16

because there is a profit to be made through lies, deceit, and

17

negligence. The answer is found in 15 USC 1635 the Truth in

18

Lending Act (TILA) Right of Rescission.

19

(Compl. ¶¶ 37, 39, 41); Cantrell v. Capitol One, No. 2:15-CV-0257-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Feb.

20

12, 2015) (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 8, 11, ECF No. 1) (identical emphasis in both complaints).

21

Furthermore, all of Plaintiffs’ claims in both cases involve alleged fraud and misconduct

22

surrounding the formation and assignment of Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan, as well as defects in

23

Capital One’s attempts to foreclose upon the Property.

24
25

Therefore, as all of the parties named in the instant action are also named in Cantrell I,
and both cases involve largely identical claims that arise from a common transactional nucleus

Page 3 of 4

1

of facts, the Court finds that this action is duplicative of Cantrell I. Accordingly, the Court

2

finds that this case is barred by the doctrine against claim splitting, and Capital One’s Motion to

3

Dismiss will be granted.

4

III.

5
6
7
8
9

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Capital One’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 4), is

GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is
DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

26
DATED this _____ day of April, 2016.

10
11
12

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 4 of 4