Medina et al v. Hill et al
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting 23 Motion to Dismiss filed by Ron Hill, Marriott Vacation Club, J W Marriott, Jr., Lisa Gordon. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 11/6/2012) (npk)
NORTHERN DiSTRiCT OF TEX,\S
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRI T COUD'T' FILED
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF T XAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
NOV - 62012
CLERK. U.s. DISTRICT COURT
ABRAHAM B. MEDINA, ET UX. ,
:81_ _...,...
§
§
Plaintiff,
VS.
_
Deputy
§
§
§
NO. 4:12-CV-286-A
§
RON HILL, ET AL.,
§
§
Defendants.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Now pending in the above-captioned action is the motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of
the Federal Rules of civil Procedure, filed by defendants, Ron
Hill ("Hill"), Lisa Gordon ("Gordon"), Marriott Ownership
Resorts, Inc. 1 ("MORI"), and J.W. Marriott, Jr.
October 11, 2012.
("Marriott"), on
Plaintiffs, Abraham B. Medina ("Abraham") and
Minerva A. Medina ("Minerva"), did not respond to the motion.
Having considered defendants' motion, plaintiff's complaint 2 , and
1 Defendants state in their motion that plaintiffs incorrectly named "Marriott Vacation Club" as a
defendant, rather than "Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc." As such, the court refers to such defendant as
"Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc." or "MORI."
2 Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have filed three versions of their complaint; however, there are
few, if any, meaningful differences among the three versions of the complaint, though there are some
different documents attached to each complaint. Thus, the court refers to the documents as one
1
applicable legal authorities, the court concludes that such
motion should be granted.
I.
Plaintiffs' Factual Allegations
Plaintiffs allege violations of unspecified provisions of
the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C.
2601 et seg.
§
They also allege that defendants violated Florida
Statutes Section 721.07(6), which requires disclosure of certain
aspects of a timeshare plan.
In their complaint, plaintiffs make the following factual
allegations:
Plaintiffs, owners of a Marriott timeshare, attended a
meeting in Las Vegas hosted by Hill, and, at some point in
December 2011, made a purchase regarding their timeshare through
Hill.
At the closing of the sale, Hill pointed to a page in the
contract for Minerva to sign, authorizing defendant to withdraw a
maintenance fee of $820.00 from Minerva's account.
Because the
plaintiffs were busy with the holiday season, they failed to
review the contract documents regarding the timeshare during the
"complaint" throughout this memorandum order and opinion, and refers to specific attachments if
necessary.
2
ten-day cancellation period, and thus missed the deadline to
cancel their timeshare purchase.
They were reminded when Abraham
reviewed their checking account activity during the first week of
January 2012, and noticed that defendants had withdrawn the
authorized monies.
They first complained to their bank, which
initially credited their account.
However, the bank investigated
the matter and concluded that plaintiffs had signed a contract
authorizing defendants to withdraw the funds involved, and then
cancelled the credit it had given to plaintiffs.
Minerva then
called Hill, who instructed plaintiffs to write a letter of
cancellation, which plaintiffs did.
In response to their letter,
Hill informed plaintiffs that they had missed the ten-day
cancellation deadline.
Plaintiffs began receiving calls and mail from Gordon's
offices in Florida, reminding them about their mortgage paYments.
Plaintiffs "asked for her help," apparently to cancel their
contract, but Gordon informed them that the transaction could not
be reversed.
Next, Abraham wrote a letter to Marriott, appealing
for Marriott's assistance in the matter, to which Marriott did
not reply.
3
II.
Grounds of the Motion
Defendants contend that plaintiffs' complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, asserting that the
complaint fails to plead facts that could support a violation of
any law by any of the defendants, and that the complaint fails to
identify exactly what law or laws were allegedly violated by
defendants.
Defendants contend that the complaint contains no
allegations that Marriott,Gordon, or MORI were even involved in
the transaction of which plaintiffs complain, and that the
alleged violations of RESPA and Florida law are not supported by
any well-pled facts.
III.
Analysis
A.
Standards Applicable to Motion to Dismiss
Rule 8(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides, in a general way, the applicable standard of pleading.
It requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,"
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2),
"in order to give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."
4
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).
(2007)
(internal
Although a complaint need
not contain detailed factual allegations, the "showing"
contemplated by Rule 8 requires the plaintiff to do more than
simply allege legal conclusions or recite the elements of a cause
of action.
Id. at 555 & n.3.
Thus, while a court must accept
all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, it need
not credit bare legal conclusions that are unsupported by any
factual underpinnings.
(2009)
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
("While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a
complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.
II
)
Moreover, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b) (6), the facts pleaded must allow
the court to infer that the plaintiff's right to relief is
plausible.
Id. at 678.
To allege a plausible right to relief,
the facts pleaded must suggest liability; allegations that are
merely consistent with unlawful conduct are insufficient.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 566-69.
"Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief .
[is] a context-specific
task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense."
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
5
B.
Application of the Standards to the Amended Complaint
Applying the above-described legal standards to the
plaintiffs' complaint, the court finds that plaintiffs'
allegations for all claims fall short of the pleading standards.
The complaint contains no facts that, if proven, could constitute
a plausible claim for relief against any defendant.
Plaintiffs
allege violations of RESPA, but fail to even identify which
provision of RESPA they contend defendants violated, and fail to
allege any specific facts that could amount to a violation of
RESPA.
Plaintiffs state that RESPA was "created by Congress to
help real estate clients FULLY UNDERSTAND the process" and "to
protect the public from certain abusive practices."
Compl. at 1.
Plaintiffs clearly are unhappy with their purchase and feel
that they did not fully understand the process, but they fail to
allege any facts that could show that any defendant violated a
provision of RESPA.
Plaintiffs grievances seem to center around
the $820.00 maintenance fee, of which they claim they were not
aware and not told.
The sole specific fact plaintiffs allege
regarding disclosure of information, or lack thereof, is that
Hill pointed to the page that involved authorization for the
6
$820.00 maintenance fee, which Minerva signed and had the
opportunity to read.
No other facts regarding Hill's failure to
disclose information are alleged by plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also invoke Florida law, based on the fact that
they received calls or mail regarding their account from MORl's
offices in Orlando and Lakeland, and also because plaintiffs
believe that such offices are involved with MORl's timeshare
sales.
The only facts alleged that have anything to do with
Florida are that plaintiffs received reminders regarding their
account and that Gordon, who apparently works in one of the
Florida offices, informed them that their purchase could not be
reversed.
However, plaintiffs do not even identify where the
actual sale took place, where the alleged timeshare property is
located, or what information should have been provided to them
under Florida law but was not.
Bearing in mind the standards for a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), the court finds that the complaint is
comprised primarily of the kinds of conclusory assertions,
labels, and conclusions which the court need not accept as true,
and that plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts as
7
would state any claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
IV.
Order
Therefore,
The court ORDERS that defendants' motion to dismiss be, and
is hereby, granted, and that all claims and causes of action
asserted in the above-captioned action,by plaintiffs against
defendants, be, and are hereby, dismissed.
SIGNED November 6, 2012.
8
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?