Kelton et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Filing
6
Memorandum Opinion and Order...all claims and actions brought by plaintiffs and intervenor against deft are dismissed with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 12/16/2014) (wrb)
..-a.w. . ''-;'J l î 'vfl(j
.v,-.. f --**- ' VVfs' .. r ' *'h)UV' .' k
'
V
4
C....w.o..'-i 1Yi' -.' *''.N''
1 b '' S J
f
i
.
1 No i-,,*x r' ') c. t r'' XAS
3 k sn '
w c
'
tLt- ï o: :1-r l-12
!
-
:
'
2
(7(---J..-,
1- r,:-ïr1-j- i.kx >'
-'
ç.
)
.
.
IN THE UNITED STATES D ISTRIC
COUR
NORT
HERN DISTRICT OF TE S
FORT WORTH DIVISION
RRNDALL KELTON , ET AL .,
.
.'
..
IEQ 16
B
1
't'
'
.
-9 ..
..
.
CLERK ,U. DI
S. STRI COURT
CT
.'
.
.
:. ..By
î,
4
..
j j
ppu'
y
'
Plaintiffs,
VS .
NO . 4 :l4-CV -991-A
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY ,
Defendant .
MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
The above -captioned action is before the court by a notice
of removal filed by defendant , Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company , as Trustee in Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WL3 Asset-Backed Certificates , Series
2006WL3 . Plaintiffs, Randall Kelton ('Kelton' and David Wethy
1
p
s
('Wethy'),2 initiated this action on April 1, 2014, in the
'
'
District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 352nd Judicial District.
On April 25, 2014, Larry Stillwell (1Stil1Well') filed a petition
'
'
in intervention . Having carefully examined the notice of removal
and the volum inous state court papers attached thereto , the court
concludes that Wethy ' claims are barred by the doctrine of res
s
' e endanti ca ed i t notceofr
D f
ndi t n he i
emovalt ti wasi r ty na ed i t sat cour
ha t
ncor ec l m n he t e
t
pl ngsas '
eadi
' s he Bank N a i Tr tCom pa '
Deut c
tonal us
nyv'
zrhi i nott fr ts acton fl by W et . Thecourq i dim isi a pr ouscaseW e hy
' ss
he is uch i ied
hy
n s s ng evi
t
fl not hi t be a ds i fl offi ous lws t m a ofwhih havebee dimi s f
ied, ed m o
leral ier rvol a uis, ny
c
n s s ed or
f i ous s orf sm ia r ons. Jul 5,201 Or ri Cas Numbe 4: 3- - 1 A,Dkt No.1
rvol nes , or i lr eas ' y
'
3 de n e
r 1 CV 3 8.
8.
1
'
'
j
k
judicata, Kelton and Stillwell have failed to show that either
has standing to pursue the claims and causes of action asserted
in their state court p leadings, and that th is action should be
dismissed in its entirety .
1.
,
Nature of the Claims Asserted
-
In their state court pleadings, Kelton and Wethy alleged
that on October 18, 2005, an individual named Gary Jennings
(
nlenningsz), who is not a party to this action, Was granted a
'
r
warranty deed as to certain property located at 10733 Lipan Trail
in Fort Worth, Texas. The same day, Jennings signed a purchase
loan agreement and a deed of trust to secure the payment of his
obligations towards the purchase of the Lipan Trail property .
Although the allegations in the state court pleadings appear in
large part to be nonsensical and difficult to discern , Kelton and
Wethy apparently contend that the deed of trust is void and
unenforceable , and that any purported assignment thereof is
fraudulent, void , and of no effect . Kelton and Wethy seek to
quiet title to the property by removal of the substitute
trustee 's deed .
2
'
Stillwell 's petition in intervention alleged that on
December l5, 2013,3 following the foreclosure of his own home ,
Stillwell signed a two year lease agreement w ith Wethy to rent
the property on Lipan Trail. However, unbekpownst to him,
defendant purchased the property at a foreclosure sale the same
day . In February 2014 , follow ing defendant 's successful forcible
entry and detainer proceeding , defendant gave Stillwell twentyfour hours ' notice to vacate the property .
Analvsis
A.
Wethy 's Claims are Barred By Res Judicata
Res judicata is generally considered an affirmative defense.
Carbonell v . La . Dep l of Health & zuman Res .,
t
F .2d 185, 189
(
5th Cir . 1985). However, the court may sua sponte dismiss an
action on res judicata grounds when the elements of the defense
are apparent on the face of the pleadings . Kansa Reinsurance Co .
v
Conqressional Mortq. Corp . of Tek ., 20 F.3d 1362, 1366 (
5th
Cir. 1994). I making s
n
uch a ruli
ng, the court ma take judicial
y
notice of the record in a prior related proceeding . Ariz . v .
Cal., 530 U . . 392, 412 (
S
2000).
3 pe ii i i er i i cat t sdat i i D e
The tton n nt venton ndi es hi e s n cember201 . Thi i obvi l a
4
ss
ousy
t
ypogr cale r
aphi r or.
Under res judicata, a prior judgment bars a subsequent
judgment when (1) the parties are identical or in privity; (
2)
the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of
competent jurisdi
ction;
t prior action'
he
was concl
uded by a
'
.
final judgment on the merits; and ( the same claim or cause of
4)
action was involved in b0th actions. Test Masters Educ. Servs.,
Inc. v . Sinqh, 428 F. 559, 57l (
3d
5th Cir. 2005). The doctrine
precludes the relitigation of claims which have been fully
adjudicated or aris from the sa s
e
me ubject matter, and that co
uld
have been litigated in the prior action . Nilsen v . Citv of Moss
Point, 70l F. 556, 560 (
2d
5th Cir. 1983).
In determining whether the same claims ôr causes of action
are brought, the Fifth Circuit has adopted the transactional
test , in which all claims arising from a 'common nucleus of
operative facts' and could have been brought in the first
'
la
wsuit, are barred by res j
udic
ata. Proc
te/ & Gamble Co. V.
Amway Corp., 376 F. 496, 499 (
3d
5th Cir. 2004)
In Nilsen , the
court explained: % I)t is black-letter laW that res judicata, by
'(
contrast to narrower doctrines of issue preclusion, bars all
claims that were or could have been advanced in support of the
cause of action on the occasion of its former adjudication
not merely those that were adjudicated.' Nilson, 701 F. at 560
'
2d
(
emphasis in original)
See also Matter Qf Howe, 913 F . 1138,
2d
4
1144 (
5th Cir. 1990) ('(
' TJhe critical issue is not the relief
requested or the theory asserted but whether plaintiff bases the
two actions on the same nucleus of operative facts.' .
s
On August 23, 2013, defendant and another entity initiated
Civil Case No . 4 :
l3-CV-697-A by filing a notice of removal of
Wethy's state court petition filed in the District Court of
Tarrant County , Texas, 342nd Judicial District . The state court
4
;
'
.
pleadings concerned the same property on Lipan Trail that is the
subject of the instant action. In the state court petition in
Case Number 4 :l3-CV -697- , Wethy complained about the validity of
A
the deed of trust, alleged that any assignmeht of the deed of
trust was void, and challenged defendant 's right to pursue
foreclosure proceedings against the property . On August 30,
2013, the court dismissed the action in its entirety because
Wethy lacked standing to pursue t claims auai
he
nst defendant.
In the instant action , Wethy again complained about the note
and deed of trust executed to secure the purchase of the Lipan
Trail property . Wethy maintained that those documents are void
and unenforcea
ble a that any pur
nd
ported assk
gnments of those
documents were without authorization and were also void .
4'ec urtke j iiln ieo tee tr rc r ofCi lCaeNu r4:3- 6 'h o ta s udca otc f h nie e od vi s mbe 1 CV-97A.
I
Considering all of the foregoing, it is apparent that the
elements of res judicata apply to bar Wethy' claims in the
s
instant action . Wethy and defendant were parties to Case Number
4:
13-CV-697-A and are parties here. The prior action was
concluded by a final judgment on the merits,s issued by the
undersigned, a court of competent jurisdiction. All of the
claims and causes of action in 50th actions arise from the same
nucleus of operative facts concerning the property on Lipan
Trail . All of the required elements hav ing been met , the court
concludes that res judicata bars Wethy 's claims in the instant
action .
6
B.
Kelton Lacks Standinq
Article III of the United States Constitution lim its the
judicial power of federal courts to 'Cases' or 'Controversies.'
'
'
'
'
U.S. Const. art. 111, 5 2, cl. 1. constitutlonal standing
i
mplicates the court' jurisdiction to consider an acti bef
s
on
ore
See Allen v. Wriqht, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (
1984). Hence, a
federal court has an independent duty , at any point in a
proceeding, to determine its jurisdiction over an action,
5 dim i alf lck ofsandi , s ast dim i ali Cas Number4: 3- - A,i a
A s ss or a
t ng uch he s ss n e
1 CV 697- s
fnaj dg n ont meisf pupo e o rsj c t.Se Co rv. rhyOiUSA.I .71 F.d
i lu me t he rt or r s s f e udiaa e me Mup l
nc, 8 3
460 469( t Ci. 3 .
, 5h r 201 )
Yve irs u ct ddn tba Weh scli ,te wo db dimisdfrlc ofsa ng,
n f e j diaa i o r ty' ams h y ul e s se o a k tndi
f t r onsasdicuss d i s i I. bel
or he eas
s e n ecton IB. ow.
including whether a party has standing . Ruhqras AG v . Marathon
Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (
1999)
The doctrine of standing seeks to ensure that a plaintiff
has a sufficient stake in the controversy to merit his or her
being the proper party to litigate it . Standing in any federal
court is a federal question not dependent on a party 's prior
standing in state court. Phillips Petroleum Co . v. Shutts, 472
U . 797, 804 (
S.
1985). Constitutional standing under Article III
has three elements :
uinjury in fact';
'
conduct; and
the plaintiff must have suffered an
traceable to the defendant 's alleged
that likely would be redressed by a favorable
decision. Ludan v . Defenders of Wildlife, 5Q4 U .S. 555, 560-561
(
1992)7 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v . Labuzan, 579 F. 533,
3d
539 (
5th Cir. 2009).
In the instant action, the state court pleadings fail to
pass even the first element needed to show standing : nothing
t
herei alle
n
ges that Kelton has suff
ered any i ury. This action
nj
concerns the note and deed of trust securing the purchase by
Jennings of property located at 10733 Lipan Trail , Fort Worth ,
Texas, and the purportedly void or invalid assignments concerning
the property that led to a purported wrongful foreclosure .
Kelton in the state court pleadings alleged that on October
2005, Jennings was granted a warranty deed as to the property on
Lipan Trail, and that he signed a note and deed of trust in
conjunction with the purchase of that property. All of the
documents pertaining to the Lipan Trail that are attached to the
state court pleadings identify Jennings as the owner of the
property . However, as far as the court can tell, nothing in the
state court papers mentions Kelton or purports to grant him any
interest in the property located at 10733 Lipan Trail.
;
To summarize, nothing in the petition can be construed as
show ing that Kelton has any interest in the property at issue ,
and so he cannot establish that he has suffered any injury in
fact . Lacking that element, Kelton is similarly unable to show
causation or that he has an injury that is redressable by the
court . Hence , Kelton cannot establish that he has standing to
bring the instant action. Luqan, 504 U.S. at 560-561.
C.
Stillwell Lacks Standinq
Similarly , Stillwell's only interest in 'the property was as
a tenant. stillwell alleged that he received notice to vacate
the premises in February 2014. The thirty-six page petition in
X hesaec u t p r i lde ado ume ttte S miedPo ro Ato ne 'wheen
t t o r pa e s ncu d c n ild ti t
we f tr y,
' ri
J ngspur st a ntW et ashi Eator i f ' i r dst a1 l mater pe t ni t '
enni
port o ppoi
hy
s t t ney-n-act' n egar o l egal t s rai ng o
t Li Tr lpr rt Thi docum ent however doesnotaut i W et t fl l pa son
he pan ai ope y. s
,
,
horze
hy o ie egal per
J nni ' be l o r p e e tJ n ng i ac ur o lw.Se W e e v. r a 5 F.d 511 51 ( t
e ngss haf r e r s n e ni s n o t f a
e b r Gaz , 70 2
, 4 5h
Ci.1 )( l n t we o atr y'd sn te il pli ift e a ei un utorz dp a tc o
r 978 hodig t r f to ne ' oe o ntte antf o ng g n a h ie r cie f
po
l on behal ofot pl ntf sby pr parng l paper flng pettonsa bref ,and gene aly a i
aw
f
her ai if
e i egal
s, ii
ii nd i s
r l ctng
a at ne i vi a inofsaea df dea p o so ) I a e ntt ep rofa t n ydo no
s tor y n olto
tt n e r l r viins. n ny ve , h owe tor e es t
menton Kelon.
i
t
8
intervention appears in its entirety to challenge the various
assignments of the note and deed of trust pertaining to the
property on Lipan Trail . Indeed , it appears that the only relief
Stillwell seeks is a declaration that the substitute trustee's
deed , signed December l5 , 2013 , showing the purchase by defendant
of the Lipan Trail property , is void . Absent from the petition ,
however, is any authority whereby Stillwell yay raise such a
challenge or obtain such relief. And although Stillwell
complains that the eviction proceeding interfered with his rental
agreement, foreclosure of the property by defendant effectively
terminated that lease. See, e. ., ICM Mortg . Corp . v . Jacob, 902
q
S. . 527, 530 ( . App .--E1 Paso 1994, writ denied).
W 2d
Tex
Stillwell has failed to show any interest in the subject property
for which he may bring the claims and causes of action asserted
in the petition in intervention.
'
111 .
Order
Therefore ,
The court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action
brought by plaintiffs, Kelton and Wèthy, and intervenor,
Stillwell , against defendant , Deutsche Bank National Trust
8!a tont po e wihsa nga dr j diaa t c r,h vigrviwe alo tesae
11 ddii o rblms t tndi n es u ct,he ou t a n e e d l f h tt
cour pl ngs i i i t belevet dim i alw oul alo be wa r e f f l eofW e hy,
t eadi , s nclned o i hat s ss
d s
r ant d or aiur
t
Kelon,orStlwel t sat any cl m f r i .
t
il l o t e
ai or elef
,
Company , as Trustee in Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WL3 A sset-Backed Certificates , Series
2GQ6-WL3 , be , and are hereby , dismissed with prejudice.
z,
2
.
.
,,
'
SIGNED December l6, 20l4 @
r
,
#
-
'
'
-'
Z
/,
#F
r
,
-,
.ze
e'
. c' zr.. .
z
d
?z ,'..' zr
z
.>
..
z.
.
.
/*
4
r
.z
z. z .. ,
f
. z z
'
a z
y
'
/'
JO
CBRYD
UA i ed States District
t
.
.
.
10
o
z
,.
'
.'
z
. e
,
.#
'
.
udge
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?