Saunders et al v. Bank of America et al
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION re: 32 MOTION to Amend/Correct 14 Amended Complaint, filed by Cynthia Nunez-Collier, Deborah A. Saunders, 27 MOTION to Amend/Correct filed by Lorraine Hunter, Roy Daniels, Janette Bowen, Richard Garrett, Gladys Garc ia, Gaye Idrissa, Wanda Beliz, Cynthia Nunez-Collier, Michelle Garrett, Dorcas Payne, Michael Loncke, Jeannie McBride, Connie P. Mele, Shirnel Grant, Sebastian Sherrod, Deborah A. Saunders, 30 MOTION request to reissue service because the post offi ce box was wrong filed by Deborah A. Saunders: Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' motions are DENIED. Plaintiffs are directed to serve the Amended Complaint on Defendants by December 18, 2013. Failure to serve by that date may result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Memorandum Opinion & Order resolves Docket Numbers 27, 30, and 32. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 11/15/2013) (tn)
r,:===================·=·~~=~1'
fUSDCSDNY
I DOCU~-1ENT
IELECTRONICAU..Y FIUD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
I DOC #:
DATE Fl-LE--·-D-~-"---\-5---\..:.>
.
DEBORAH A. SAUNDERS, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM
ORDER & OPINION
- against
12 Civ. 9201 (GBD) (RLE)
BANK OF AMERICA, et aI.,
Defendants.
RONALD L.ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
Nine pro se Plaintiffs filed this action on December 17, 2012, against numerous financial
institutions (together "Defendants"). Plaintiffs allege Defendants originated and serviced home
mortgages to PlaintitIs in a manner that violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 ("RICO"), the Truth in
Lending Act and Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.c. §§ 1601(a), 1639, the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 3601-3631, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, 6(e)(2), 12 U.S.C.A
§ 2605(e)(2). Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on February] 3,2013. Before the Court
are three motions: (1) Plaintiffs' motion to correct the Amended Complaint; (2) Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint; and (3) Plaintiffs' motion to reissue
servIce. For the reasons that follow, PlaintitIs' motions are DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint and accompanying exhibit on December 17,
2012. (Doc. No.1.) The Complaint is seventy-eight pages in length, and the Exhibit is sixteen
pages. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs named the following Defendants in the caption: Bank of
America; Citi Mortgage; lP Morgan Chase N.A; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; Ally
j'
l
FinanciallGMAC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company; and US Bank National N.A. Trustee. On
February 13, 2013, Plaintiffs tiled an Amended Complaint that is twenty-seven pages in length.
(Doc. No. 14.) In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs named one new Defendant in the caption:
WRI Capital Group LLC.
On April 23, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a seventy-one-page motion to correct the Amended
Complaint. (Doc. No, 27,) Two Exhibits, totaling sixty-nine pages, are attached, In support of
their request, Plaintiffs cite Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment standard, (Id. at 7.) Plaintiffs
request that the following Defendants be added to the Complaint:
Brian T, Moynihan, personally; U,S. Attorney Southern NY District; Eric Holder,
Attorney General US; MERSCORP; Sanjiv Das, personally; John G. Stomp,
personally; Michael Carpenter, personally; Jacques Brand, personally; Richard
Davis, personally; Wayne Tingle, personally; Bank of New York Mellon, aka Bank
of New York; and Scott Poster, personally.
Plaintiffs request to amend their Complaint for a second time because "the amended complaint
listed several defendants within the body of the complaint but were not properly added to the
cover sheet." (Doc. No. 32 at 3.) They further assert that the "identities of these additional
parties were made available to [Plaintiffs] in most recent discovery and were unavailable to
[Plaintiffs] previously." (Id. at 5.)
On July 30, 2013, Plaintiff Deborah Saunders ("Saunders") filed a motion to reissue
service "because the P.O. box was wrong." (Doc. No. 31.) Saunders additionally indicated that
she gave the Pro Se office a new address.
On October 15,2013, Plaintiffs filed a thirty-page motion requesting permission to file a
Second Amended Complaint in order to add additional Defendants. (Doc. No. 32.) With the
exception of the cover page, this submission is identical to first thirty pages of the April 23
motion, and states the exact same grounds for relief.
2
The submissions in this action, which total two hundred ninety-one pages, are not clearly
written or easy to understand. The original Complaint and the Amended Complaint do not
inform the Court who violated Plaintiffs' federally protected rights, how Plaintiffs' federally
protected rights were violated, when such violations occurred, nor why Plaintiffs are entitled to
relief. Plaintiffs submissions contain excerpts from newspaper articles and opinion-editorials
that do not pertain to their specific claims. Plaintiffs use legal terms that have no meaning in the
context in which they are used. The paragraphs are not numbered. There are no clear and
concise allegations of what specific actions Defendants undertook that caused harm to the
individual Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' motions are not presented in an organized fashion, either
factually or legally.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Motions for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 27,32)
Courts should grant parties leave to amend pleadings "when justice so requires." See
Fed. R. Civ. P. IS(a). Pro se litigants in particular should be afforded reasonable opportunities
to amend in order to demonstrate the existence of a valid claim. Stevens v. Goord, 2002 WL
987293 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 10,2002) (quoting Satchell v. Dilworth, 745 F.2d 781,785 (2d
Cir.1984)). However, leave to amend may be denied for reasons such as the movant's undue
delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive; the futility ofthe amendment; and undue prejudice to the
opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371
u.s.
178, 182 (1962). An amendment is considered
"futile if [the] proposed claim could not withstand a motion to dismiss." Dougherty v. Town
0/
North Hempstead Bd o/Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
Notwithstanding Plaintiffs' pro se status, their motions for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint are denied. Plaintiffs state that they failed to name all Defendants in the
3
caption. However, Plaintiffs have had ample time to amend their Complaint, and have already
done so. Nearly a full year has passed since Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint, and they
have yet to serve Defendants or to advance the litigation in any meaningful way. Further,
Plaintiffs have failed to indicate how any of the parties sought to be added have engaged in overt
acts that have directly harmed Plaintiffs. Finally, two of the parties that Plaintiffs seek to add
the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder,
are immune from suit. Under the principle of sovereign immunity "the United States may not
be sued without its consent." United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206,212 (1983). "Absent a
waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit." FDIC
v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994).
B. Motion to Reissue Service (Doc. No. 30)
Saunders's additional request that the Court reissue service must be denied. In support of
her request, Saunders indicates that the post office box she provided "was '-"Tong" and that she
has a new address. (Doc. No. 30.) However, the docket indicates that the Pro Se Office has
already sent two Rule 4 information packages to Saunders, on March 1,2013, and again on April
8,2013. The March] package was returned as undeliverable because Saunders had provided a
post office box as her address. Shortly thereafter, Saunders advised the Court of her change of
address, indicating a street address rather than a post office box. (Doc. No. 20.) The Court
promptly remailed the Rule 4 information package to Saunders's street address. The address that
Saunders provided in her request to reissue service is the same street address to which the
information package was mailed on April 8.
4
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' motions are DENIED. Plaintiffs are directed to serve
the Amended Complaint on Defendants by December 18,2013. Failure to serve by that date
may result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute.
This Memorandum Opinion & Order resolves Docket Numbers 27, 30, and 32.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of November 2013
New York, New York
The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?