Jenkins et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 73

ORDER 1. Plaintiffs FDCPA claim against Melvin and Geneva Stockton are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.2. Defendant Mortgage Contracting Services motion to d ismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs FDCPA claim. That claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion to dismiss is MOOT with respect to Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims. Those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDIC E.3. Universal Mortgage Filed Services, LLCs motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 46) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs FDCPA claim. That claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion to dismiss is MOOT with respect to Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims. Those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.4. Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 68) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs FDCPA claim. That claim is DISMISSED WIT H PREJUDICE. The motion for summary judgment is MOOT with respect to Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims. Those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.5. Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 59) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 3/2/15. (mb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Dixon F. Jenkins, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) Case No. 1:13-CV-771 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiffs to show cause within seven days of the date of the order why their claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) against Defendants Melvin and Geneva Stockton should not be dismissed. Doc. No. 71. Plaintiffs did not respond to the show cause order within the time allowed by the Court. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the Court in that order: 1. Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim against Melvin and Geneva Stockton are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims against these Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. Defendant Mortgage Contracting Services motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 34) is well-taken and is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim. That claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion to dismiss is MOOT with respect to Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims. Those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Universal Mortgage Filed Services, LLC’s motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. No. 46) is well-taken and is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim. That claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion to dismiss is MOOT with respect to Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims. Those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 68) is well-taken and is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim. That claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion for summary judgment is MOOT with respect to Plaintiffs’ supplemental state law claims. Those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 5. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint (Doc. No. 59) is not well-taken and is DENIED. 6. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED Date March 2, 2015 s/Sandra S. Beckwith Sandra S. Beckwith Senior United States District Judge 2

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?