Bullen et al v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage et al
Filing
8
DECISION & ORDER: Defendants' 6 Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED. C/M. Forwarded for judgment. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 4/15/2015. (Chee, Alvin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
CLAUDETE BULLEN, EDWARD BULLEN,
MATTHEW BULLEN,
DECISION & ORDER
14-cv-3185 (WFK) (RLM)
Plaintiffs,
-againstWELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC
WACHOVIA CORPORATION
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ II, United States District Judge:
Claudette Bullen, Edward Bullen, and Matthew Bullen (collectively "Plaintiffs"),
proceeding prose, brought this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Queens on December 23, 2013 against Defendants Wells Fargo Horne Mortgage, Argent
Mortgage Company, LLC, and Wachovia Corporation (collectively, "Defendants"). On May 21,
2014, Defendants removed the case to this Court. Plaintiffs allege Defendants conducted an
illegal foreclosure of a mortgage and bring claims against Defendants for fraud, wantonness,
abuse of process, trespass, slander, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, and civil
conspiracy. Currently before the Court is Defendant Wells Fargo Horne Mortgage's and
Defendant Wachovia Corporation's motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, Defendants'
motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 1
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Claudette Bullen and Matthews Bullen are residents of Queens, New York.
Dkt 1. (Notice of Removal), Ex. A ("Complaint") at~~ 1-22 . Plaintiff Edward Bullen owrJs
1
Because the Court finds the Complaint fails to state a cause of action as to any Defendant, the
Court dismisses the Complaint with respect to Defendant Argent Mortgage Company, LLC sua
sponte.
2
Plaintiffs' Complaint has several errors with respect to the numbering of paragraphs. For
purposes of this Order, the Court has re-numbered the paragraphs in the appropriate order.
-1-
property in Saint Albans, New York. Id. at 3. Defendants conduct business within the state of
New York. Id.
~~at
4-6.
According to Plaintiffs, Defendants have "engaged in predatory lending, fraud and []
there appears to be an illegal transfer of mortgage and fraudulent assignment of mortgage." Id.
at ~ 9. Plaintiffs' further state Defendants conducted an illegal foreclosure by way of "Wells
Fargo Bank using defective and misrepresented documents." Id.
at~
11.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs bring the following causes of action: fraud,
wantonness, trespass, abuse of process, slander of title, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment,
and civil conspiracy. Id.
at~~
8-30. Plaintiffs seek various types ofrelief, including discharge of
mortgages on the real property located at 104-21 200th Street, Saint Albans, New York. Id.
at~~
a-d.
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), each claim must set forth
sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). A sufficiently pled complaint "must provide 'more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation."' Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt.
Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 717 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). If a complaint merely
offers labels and conclusions, a formulaic recitation of the elements, or "naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement," it will not survive a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)) (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted). At this stage, the Court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and
-2-
draws all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the non-movant. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d
66, 71 (2d Cir. 2009). However, the Court need not credit "legal conclusions" in a claim or
"threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements." Id. at 72 (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted). Moreover, the Court is "not bound to accept as true legal conclusion couched as factual
allegation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations. Id.; Pension Benefit Guar.
Corp., 712 F.3d at 717-18. With these principles in mind, the Court turns its analysis to
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
II.
Analysis
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs have not opposed Defendants' motion to dismiss.
However:
[a Plaintiffs] failure to oppose a 12(b)(6) motion cannot itself justify
dismissal of a complaint. In deciding an unopposed motion to dismiss, a
court is to assume the truth of a pleading's factual allegations and test only
its legal sufficiency. Thus, although a party is of course to be given a
reasonable opportunity to respond to an opponent's motion, the
sufficiency of a complaint is a matter of law that the court is capable of
determining based on its own reading of the pleading and knowledge of
the law. Accordingly, [a] Court must review the Complaint to determine
whether plaintiff has carried his burden.
Haas v. Commerce Bank, 497 F. Supp. 2d 563, 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Holwell, J.) (internal
quotation marks, citations, and ellipses omitted). Moreover, because Plaintiffs are prose, "the
Court must liberally construe [Plaintiffs'] pleadings, and must interpret [the] Complaint to raise
the strongest arguments it suggests. Id. at 564-65 (internal citation marks omitted).
-3-
A. Plaintiffs Wrongful Foreclosure, Trespass, and Unjust Enrichment Claims Must be
Dismissed Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)
With respect to Plaintiffs' claims for trespass, Plaintiffs concede "[t]here are no such
claims for wrongful foreclosure in this case." Complaint at iJ 26. Plaintiffs state exactly the
same with respect to their trespass and unjust enrichment claims. Id. at iJiJ 20, 28. Because
Plaintiffs admit no cause of action exists with respect to their wrongful foreclosure, trespass, and
unjust enrichment claims, those claims must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 3
B. Plaintiffs' Claims based on Fraud Must be Dismissed Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)
Plaintiffs allege Defendants engaged in fraud and predatory lending because Defendants
conducted an illegal foreclosure by way of "Wells Fargo Bank using defective and
misrepresented documents." Complaint at iJiJ 9, 11.
Where Plaintiffs are alleging claims based on fraud, they must satisfy the more stringent
pleading requirements of Rule 9(b ), which demands that "[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party
must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." Fed. R. Civ. P.
9(b). "[T]he allegations should 'specify the time, place, speaker, and content of the alleged
misrepresentations."' Proffer v. Nathan's Famous Sys., Inc., 904 F. Supp. 101, 106 (E.D.N.Y.
1995) (Spatt, J.) (quoting DiVittorio v. Equidyne Extractive Indus., Inc., 822 F.2d 1242, 1247 (2d
Cir. 1987)).
Here, Plaintiffs fail to shed any light on how the documents were defective and
misrepresenting. There are no facts explaining the circumstances of the allegations, such as
3
Even if Plaintiffs mistakenly conceded these claims, they would be dismissed since Plaintiffs'
descriptions of these claims do no more than provide '"an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 712 F.3d at 717 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678); see also infra Section II. C.
-4-
content or time, to suggest Defendants engaged in fraud. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' fraud claim
must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule
12(b)(6).
C. Plaintiffs have Failed to State a Cause of Action against Defendants for the
Remaining Claims Asserted in the Complaint
Plaintiffs' remaining causes of action are wantonness, abuse of process, slander of title,
and civil conspiracy. Like the aforementioned claims, these claims must also be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)( 6) for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs' complaint fails to provide any facts to suggest wantonness, abuse of process,
slander of title, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy4 . Instead, Plaintiffs' complaint is filled
with "naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. For
example, with respect to Plaintiffs' slander claim, Plaintiffs state "there are seven such claims for
slander of title but only this adverse possession thereof to challenge the claim and mortgage
thereof." Complaint at ii 24. But, Plaintiffs fail to state what seven claims or facts comprise their
cause of action for slander. Plaintiffs do exactly the same with respect to their abuse of process
claim where they state "[t]here are several areas that [Defendants] collectively abused the legal
process and such abuse of process claims filed in this action[.]" Id. at ii 22. Yet, Plaintiffs fail to
state any area in which Defendants abused the legal process and fail to state any facts to suggest
how Defendants abused the legal process. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs also run into this issue with
respect to their civil conspiracy claim by stating "[t]here are four areas of conspiracy claims and
such claims of civil conspiracy filed by [Plaintiffs] in this case." Id. at ii 30. Again, Plaintiffs do
4
Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim also fails as a matter of law because New York courts do not
recognize a claim for civil conspiracy. Alexander & Alexander of NY, Inc. v. Fritzen, 68
N.Y.2d 968, 969 (1986) ("[A] mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of
action. Allegations of conspiracy are permitted only to connect the actions of separate
defendants with an otherwise actionable tort.") (internal citations and quotations omitted).
-5-
not state any area in which Defendants could be liable for conspiracy claims. Moreover,
Plaintiffs provide no facts to suggest any civil conspiracy amongst Defendants. Plaintiffs' cause
of action for wantonness also suffers from the same deficiencies. Id. at ~ 19. These types of
descriptions do no more than provide '"an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.'" Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 712 F.3d at 717 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' causes of action for wantonness, abuse of process, slander oftitle, and
civil conspiracy claims must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 6, is hereby
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ WFK
UNITED STATES
Dated: April /> ""' 2015
,
Brooklyn, NY
-6-
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?