Haun v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
Opinion and Order: This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 7/27/2017 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (Copy mailed to plaintiff) (cp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Case No. 6:17-cv-00052-MC
OPINION AND ORDER
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Haun, proceeding pro se, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
ECF No. 2. The Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), must screen applications to proceed
IFP and dismiss any case that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. In two earlier orders, the court dismissed Haun’s complaint for failure to state
claim. Those orders contained explicit instructions for Haun to follow. For example, Court noted
that given the Oregon Supreme Court’s decisions in Brandrup v. ReconTrust, 353 Or. 668, 672
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
(2013) and Niday v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 353 Or. 648, 660 (2013), Haun’s mere generalized
allegations that he was harmed due to the “divergent paths” of the note and deed failed to state a
claim. Additionally, the Court instructed Haun that as he brought a fraud claim, he must support
the claim with the heightened pleading standards under rule 9(b).
Haun’s Second Amended Complaint fails to address any of the deficiencies noted in this
Court’s two earlier orders. Haun still provides no allegations as to “the who, what, when, where,
and how” of the alleged harm. See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir.
2003). Additionally, Haun failed to make any substantive changes to his First Amended
Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint essentially is a verbatim recital of the First
Amended Complaint. In the First Amended Complaint, in describing the date and time his claims
arose, Haun alleged:
These event[s] have especially taken place within the past few years, following the crises and
debacles stemming from the Mortgage Meltdown disaster circa 2008. Causes of action exist
from divergent paths that have been taken by both the mortgage note and by the deed of trust.
Haun’s Second Amended Complaint contains an identical allegation, with the only
addition coming at the end of the paragraph, when Haun includes, “consistent with Federal
question per FDIC practices and effects.” SAC, 4. Similarly, Haun cut and pasted the identical
allegations from the “facts underlying your claim” section of the FAC into the SAC. Once again,
Haun’s only addition comes at the end of the paragraph, where he includes “and is consistent
with Federal question per FDIC practices and effects.” SAC, 5. These minor additions do not
address the substantive failures identified in the two earlier orders. I previously warned Haun
that failing to cure the deficiencies could result in dismissal with prejudice. As the SAC is
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
essentially a carbon copy of the FAC, it is clear that Haun is either unwilling or unable to address
the instructions from the Court. The SAC not only fails to state a fraud claim, it fails to state any
claim. As leave to amend would be futile, this action is dismissed, with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27th day of July, 2017.
______/s/ Michael McShane_______
United States District Judge
3 – OPINION AND ORDER
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?