Garza et al v. Bank of America, N.A., As Successor By Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
Filing
14
Memorandum Opinion and Order The Court GRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5 ),and Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs request leave to amend. Therefore, they have until October 27, 2014 to amend to cure these deficiencies. Failure to do so will result in this case being dismissed with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 10/17/2014) (ult)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
JOHNNY GARZA and LISA GARZA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-553-O
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5), filed July 25, 2014;
Plaintiffs’ Response (ECF No. 11), filed August 29, 2014; and Defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 13),
filed September 12, 2014. Having reviewed the motion, the pleadings, and the applicable law, the
Court finds that it should be and is hereby GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
In May 2010, Plaintiff took out a mortgage in the amount of $167,254 to purchase property
in Fort Worth, Texas. See Notice Removal Ex. A (Original Pet.) ¶¶ 7-8, ECF No. 1-1. After
Defendant threatened to foreclose on the property, Plaintiff sought a loan modification with
Defendant, but Defendant has neither approved nor denied Plaintiff’s application. Id. at ¶¶ 10-13.
In the meantime, Defendant has continued to threaten foreclosure. Id. at ¶ 14.
Plaintiffs brought the instant action in state court in Tarrant County, Texas, on June 26, 2014.
Id. Defendant removed the action to this Court on July 18, 2014, based on diversity of citizenship.
See generally Notice Removal, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action: (1)
common-law fraud1; (2) breach of contract; and (3) anticipatory breach of contract. See id. Original
Pet., ECF No. 1-1. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to bar any foreclosure proceedings.
Id. at ¶ 23. On July 25, 2014, Defendant filed its motion to dismiss all claims pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant provided the Court a copy of the Deed of Trust signed
by Plaintiffs (Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Ex. A, ECF No. 5-2), a copy of the Promissory Note signed by
Plaintiff Johnny Garza (Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Ex. B, ECF No. 5-2), and a copy of the Assignment to
Defendant (Def.’s Mot. Dismiss Ex. C, ECF No. 5-2). The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe
for adjudication.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant may file a motion to dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
To defeat a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility standard is not akin
to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are
‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
1
Plaintiffs have since abandoned their claim for fraud, so the Court will not address this cause of
action. See Pls.’ Resp. Mot. Dismiss ¶ 12, ECF No. 11.
2
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the
complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007). The Court is not bound to accept legal
conclusions as true, and only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion
to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court
assumes their veracity and then determines whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief. Id.
“When a complaint fails to adequately state a claim, such deficiency should be ‘exposed at
the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.’” Prewitt v.
Continental Automotive, 927 F. Supp. 2d 435, 443 (W.D. Tex. 2013) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 558). Courts should, however, give the plaintiff at least one chance to amend a complaint before
dismissing the action with prejudice. Id. (citing Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 329 (5th Cir. 2002)).
III.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs assert causes of action for breach of contract and anticipatory breach of contract,
seeking injunctive relief from this Court. See Original Pet., ECF No. 1-1. Defendant seeks dismissal
of all of Plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6). See generally Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 5. The
Court limits its analysis to the Original Petition and those documents central to the claims. See
Scanlan v. Tex. A&M Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the Court addresses
each ground for relief in turn.
A.
Breach of Contract
3
The elements of a breach of contract action are: “(1) the existence of a valid contract; (2)
performance or tender of performance; (3) breach by the defendant; and (4) damages resulting from
the breach.” Oliphant Fin., LLC v. Galaviz, 299 S.W.3d 829, 834 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.)
(citing Hussong v. Schwan’s Sales Enters., Inc., 896 S.W.2d 320, 326 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1995, no writ)). The Court struggles to decipher Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. Assuming
Plaintiffs considered the loan modification application a contract, the Court disagrees. Defendant did
not enter into a valid contract with Plaintiffs upon a modification of the loan. Thus, the loan
modification application does not constitute a valid contract. Assuming Plaintiffs referred to the
mortgage as the contract, the Court understands that Plaintiffs defaulted on the note before
Defendant threatened to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiffs have not stated that they
performed under the contract. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ have not adequately stated
a claim for breach of contract.
B.
Anticipatory Breach of Contract
Under Texas law, to state a claim for anticipatory breach of contract, the plaintiff must show
(1) absolute repudiation of the obligation; (2) lack of just excuse for repudiation; and (3) damage to
the non-repudiating party. Taylor Pub. Co. v. Sys. Mktg. Inc., 686 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Because Plaintiffs defaulted on the note prior to foreclosure
proceedings, Defendant has provided a just excuse for initiating the foreclosure. Furthermore,
Defendant is under no obligation to favorably modify Plaintiffs’ note. Similar to the breach of
contract claim discussed above, Plaintiffs have not indicated in the Original Petition that they
performed under the contract. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ have not adequately stated
a claim for anticipatory breach of contract.
4
C.
Injunctive Relief
In the absence of a viable substantive claim, Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief is without
merit.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5),
and Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs request leave to amend.
Therefore, they have until October 27, 2014 to amend to cure these deficiencies. Failure to do so
will result in this case being dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED on this 17th day of October, 2014.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?