Hughes v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting 26 Motion to Dismiss. Kathryn Burke is DISMISSED as a defendant. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 09/17/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
GREGORY HUGHES,

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14

This is a residential foreclosure avoidance case involving one property. Plaintiff Gregory

9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
BANK OF AMERICA CORP. et al.,
12
Defendants.

3:12-cv-00513-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

15

Hughes sued Defendants Bank of America Corp., Bank of America, N.A., BAC Home Loan

16

Servicing, LP, ReconTrust Co., N.A., Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”),

17

the Washoe County Recorder’s Office, and Kathy Burke in pro se in state court on thirteen

18

nominal causes of action1: (1) Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) violations; (2)

19

Breach of Contract (failure to comply with HUD regulations before foreclosure, as required by

20

the deed of trust); (3) “Unreasonable Collection Efforts”; (4) Intentional Misrepresentation

21

(accepting payments but not applying them to Plaintiff’s account); (5) Fair Debt Collection

22

Practices Act (“FDCPA”) violations; (6) violations of the “FTC Safeguards Rule,” 67 Fed. Reg.

23

36484; (7) Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) violations; (8) Abuse of Process;

24
1

25

The causes of action are listed as 1–7 and 9–14. (See generally, Compl., July 30, 2012,
ECF No. 1-1, at 5).

1

(9) Intentional Misrepresentation (falsely claiming ownership of the promissory note); (10) “Bad

2

Faith Bargaining”; (11) False Pretenses; (12) “Filing a False Certificate (Robosigning)”; and (13)

3

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”). Defendants removed. The Court has

4

dismissed several claims as precluded, but some claims remain.

5

Defendant Kathryn Burke had moved to dismiss in state court, but the motion was not

6

adjudicated before removal and was not entered into this Court’s docket at the time of removal.

7

The Clerk recently entered that motion into this Court’s docket and notified Plaintiff of his duty

8

to respond. Plaintiff has not timely responded. The Court grants the motion. See Local R. 7-

9

2(d).

10
11
12
13

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED, and
Kathryn Burke is DISMISSED as a Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated this 2nd day of of September, 2013.
Dated this 17th day August, 2013.
15
16
17

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2 of 2