Brissett et al v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 54

ORDER GRANTING 39 Defendant Ryan Shoaf and Shoaf Law Firm's Motion to Dismiss, DENYING 50 Plaintiff's Notice/Motion for Sanctions, and DENYING AS MOOT 51 Defendants' Motion to Stay Responding to Discovery. This matter is now closed. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/22/2015. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiffs, via US Mail, to 727 Utica Avenue, P.M.B. 164, Brooklyn, NY, 11203. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:14-CV-336-BO
COURTNAY T. BRISSETT and LADWIN
BRISSETT,
Plaintiffs,
V.

GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, eta!.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendants Shoaf Law Firm, P.A. and Ryan Shoaf's
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs,
proceeding pro se, have failed to respond. Also before the Court is plaintiff's "notice" seeking
sanctions against defendants and defendants' motion to stay discovery.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this action concerning an allegedly fraudulent quit-claim deed. Plaintiffs
named a number of defendants, all but two of whom were dismissed on plaintiffs' filing of a
notice of voluntary dismissal. The remaining defendants, Shoaf and Shoaf Law Firm, have
answered plaintiff's complaint and moved to dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs allege the following claims against the Shoaf defendants: unfair and deceptive trade
practices, breach of fiduciary duty, professional misconduct, gross negligence, civil conspiracy,
and conspiracy in facilitation of fraud. In their complaint, plaintiffs state that this Court has
federal question jurisdiction over their claims.

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l) authorizes dismissal of a claim for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff has the
burden of proving jurisdiction to survive the motion. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642,
64 7 (4th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiffs have failed to show that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over their
claims. Generally, whether this Court has federal question jurisdiction "is governed by the 'wellpleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal
question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc.

v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,392 (1987) (citation omitted). A review of plaintiffs' complaint and
the exhibit thereto reveals no federal question that would vest this Court with subject matter
jurisdiction. Each of the claims against the remaining Shoaf defendants arise under state law.
Therefore, even if a claim in the complaint against another defendant would have vested this
Court with subject matter jurisdiction, those defendants have been voluntarily dismissed and the
Court would decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against the
remaining defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

CONCLUSION
Because plaintiffs have failed to come forward and demonstrate any basis for this Court's
jurisdiction, defendants' motion to dismiss [DE 39] is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to stay
responding to discovery [DE 51] is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs' notice/motion for sanctions
[DE 50] is without merit and is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
This the~ day of January, 2015.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2