ROMAN v. BANK OF AMERICA et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION RE: IN FORMA PAUPERIS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 3/12/2012; 3/13/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(tomg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FILED
CIVIL ACTION
J1!.SON E. ROMAN
MAR 1 2 2012
v.
NO. 11-6603
BANK OF AMERICA, et a1.
~I()HAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk
cY
Dep. Clerk
MEMORANDUM
MARCH
SANCHEZ, J.
, 2012
Jason Roman brought this action against Countrywide Home
Loans ("Countrywide") and Bank of America, seeking to proceed in
forma pauperis.
The Court will grant Roman leave to proceed
forma pauueris, but,
for the following reasons, will dismiss his
complaint without prejudice to his filing an amended complaint.
I.
FACTS
According to the complaint, Roman's home mortgage was sold
to countrywide.
Roman alleges that Countrywide promised that his
monthly mortgage payment would be reduced from $1,800.00 to
$600.00 if he took a second mortgage.
Roman entered into a
second mortgage, but countrywide never reduced his payments.
He
also alleges that Countrywide required him to pay for homeowner's
insurance, even though he already had homeowner's insurance·.
When Roman notified countrywide of the issue, Countrywide
allegedly promised to repay him $4,000.00, but never did.
At some point, Bank of America purchased Countrywide.
Bank
of America also falsely promised to reduce Roman's monthly
mortgage payments and continued Countrywide's practice of
charging him for homeowner's insurance even though he already had
1
insurance.
Roman contends that he has "[run] out of money" and
that Bank of America is now "attempting to impose a foreclosure
(Compl. ~~ 5-6.)
proceeding upon (him]."
Roman seeks "an
injunctive order immediately preventing .
Bank of America
from entering foreclosure proceedings against [him],"
~ 9),
as well as over $50 million in damages.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As Roman is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) (2) (B) applies.
That provision requires the Court to
dismiss the complaint if it
frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune.
A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact."
325 (1989).
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under
§
1915(e) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), see
Tourscher v. MCCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which
requires this Court to determine whether the complaint contains
"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
relief that is plausible on its face."
U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
Furthermore,
to state a claim to
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
(quotations omitted).
"[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."
Fed. R. civ. P. 12(h) (3).
III. ANALYSIS
It is apparent from the complaint that Roman is attempting
2
to base his claims in part on 42 U.S.C.
§
1983.
However, as the
defendants are not state actors, there is no legal basis for any
§
1983 claims against them.
F.3d 628,638 (3d Cir. 1995)
Groman v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47
("[Al suit under § 1983 requires the
wrongdoers to have violated federal rights of the plaintiff, and
that they did so while acting under color of state law.").
Furthermore, plaintiff has not stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1982 or § 1985 because there is no suggestion that defendants
were motivated by race or class-based discriminatory animus.
Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789, 797
(3d Cir. 2001);
Lake v. Arnold, 112 F.3d 682, 685 (3d Cir. 1997).
Additionally,
although many federal laws apply to lenders, the complaint fails
to state a claim under any of those statutes.
Koons Buick
Pontiac GMC, InC. v. Nigh, 543 U.S. 50, 53-54 (2004)
(Truth in
Lending Act was enacted "to assure a meaningful disclosure of
credit terms" and "requires a creditor to disclose information
relating to such things as finance charges, annual percentage
rates of interest, and borrowers' rights")
(quotations omitted);
In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va., 622 F.3d 275, 282 (3d Cir. 2010)
(Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act is an amendment to TILA
and imposes "special disclosure requirements" on certain types of
loans); Sarsfield v. Citimortgage, Inc., 667 F. Supp. 2d 461,
465-67 (M.D. Pa. 2009)
(discussing Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act and cOncluding that provision governing escrow
accounts established by lenders, 12 U.S.C. § 2609, does not
create a private cause of action) .
3
However, the facts alleged in the complaint appear to
support claims under state law for fraudulent misrepresentation
and violation of pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.
But it is unclear whether diversity
jurisdiction exists over those claims because the complaint does
not indicate the citizenship of the defendants.
1332(c) (1)
See 28 U.S.C. §
("[Al corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of
every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated
and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal
place of business.").
Furthermore, even if Roman could state
claims within the Court's diversity jurisdiction, the Anti
Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C.
§
2283, prohibits the Court from
enjoining any foreclosure proceedings that Bank of America has
already filed against Roman in state court.
See Ungar v.
Mandell, 471 F.2d 1163, 1165 (2d Cir. 1972).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the
complaint without prejudice.
Roman is given leave to file an
amended complaint in the event he can cure any of the above-noted
deficiencies.
An appropriate order follows.
4
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?