Peters v. Wells Fargo et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING CASE; denying 10 Motion to Dismiss; denying 11 Motion for Hearing. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 2/5/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

FEB 0 5 2016

SOUTHERN DIVISION

~~

ELIZABETH C. PETERS,

4: 16-CV-04002-LLP

Plaintiff,
vs.
WELLS FARGO, JORDAN HEIGHTS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.,
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOC.,
FORD CREDIT,
TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS
PRIVATE, FOREIGN AND UNITED
STATES, and HICKLIN GARAGE DOOR
OPENERS,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Elizabeth C. Peters, filed a complaint in this Court, arguing
that defendants violated her rights in connection with a foreclosure proceeding
in Iowa state court. She also moves to dismiss the "Wrongful Foreclosure and
Notice of Sheriffs Levy and Sale" that is the subject of her complaint. For the
reasons stated below, her complaint is dismissed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Based on the documents Peters attached to her original complaint, Wells
Fargo Bank filed a foreclosure petition in Iowa state court in Dallas County.
Docket 1-1 at 5. The Jordan Heigh ts Owner's Association and Portfolio

Recovery Assoc. were joined as parties with title or interest in the foreclosed
property. Id. at 6.
On January 6, 2016, Peterson filed a notice of removal that this Court
construed as a complaint. Docket 1. Peterson amended her complaint, but the
amended complaint is almost identical to her notice of removal. Docket 6.
Neither complaint contains a clear set of facts or legal argument. Peterson is a
patient at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota with a home in Des Moines, Iowa. Id.
at l; Docket 1-1at4. Without stating facts or raising arguments, Peters alleges
the foreclosure of her property in Des Moines was wrongful, and by entering
this property, defendants violated federal "laws for security and safety of
Homeowner's residence .... "Docket 6 at 4.
She argues that this court has diversity jurisdiction over the case.
Docket 6 at 3. She claims damages greater than seventy-five thousand dollars
through medical expenses and wrongful loss of property. Id. at 4. In her
amended complaint, she states that "Petitioner ... is a citizen of Minnesota,
Iowa, Virginia and New York." Docket 6 at 3. In her original complaint, she
states petitioner is a citizen of "South Dakota, Iowa, Virginia and New York."
Docket 1 at 3. She does not clarify who "petitioner" is. She states that
"Defendant" is a citizen of Iowa, without explaining which party this refers to.
Docket 6 at 3. She claims she gave a notice of removal to "all adverse parties,"
but she did not attach a notice of removal filed in Iowa state court to either of
her complaints. Docket 6 at 4.

2

Through its own research, the Court discovered that Peters also filed in
the Federal District Court in Minnesota. See 0: 15-cv-04602-SRN-FLN
(hereinafter "MN Docket"). The same notice of removal was filed in the District
of Minnesota on December 30, 2015. MN Docket 1.
On February 3, 2016, Peters filed a motion to dismiss. Docket 10. She
requests that the court dismiss the foreclosure and notice of sale of her
property. Id.
DISCUSSION

Peters does not raise specific claims or present supporting facts. It seems
clear, however, that this case has absolutely no connection to the District of
South Dakota. None of the parties are citizens of South Dakota and none of the
actions which gave rise to the suit occurred in South Dakota. See Fastpath, Inc.

v. Arbela Techs. Corp., 760 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that
causes of action must arise from or be related to a defendant's actions within
the forum state). This Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the
parties.
"The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the
wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This Court has the discretion to either dismiss
or transfer the case, sua sponte. De La Cruz v. United States, No. 4:14CV3160,
2014 WL 4705145, at *2 (D. Neb. Sept. 22, 2014); see also Cosmichrome, Inc. v.

Spectra Chrome, LLC, 504 Fed. App'x. 468, 472 (6th Cir. 2012); Bravo v. Bexar
3

Cty., TX, No. 12-CV-4009 (MKB), 2014 WL 1155302, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21,

2014); Abramson v. America Online, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 438, 443 (N.D. Tex.
2005). Because Peters' complaint is pending in Federal District Court in
Minnesota, the interest of justice does not require this Court to transfer her
case. Therefore, her amended complaint is dismissed.
Peters' motion to dismiss is denied. She requests that this Court dismiss
her foreclosure and notice of sale of her property. Docket 6 at 5. Peters does
not address her jurisdictional issues in this motion, and it does not affect the
Court's analysis above. The Court does not have any power to grant her
request. Her motion is therefore denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED
1.

Peters' amended complaint (Docket 6) is dismissed without
prejudice.

2.

Peters' motion to dismiss (Docket 10) is denied.

3.

Peters' motion for an emergency hearing (Docket 11) is denied as
the Court has no jurisdiction over this matter.

Dated this 5th day of February, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

~•llULu. l~SdJ-._
ATTEST:

::E~~
n~puty

4