Green v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Order... The court ORDERS that defendant's motion to dismiss be, and is hereby, granted, and that plaintiff's claims be, and are hereby, dismissed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 5/30/2017) (wxc)

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHER.i'! DlSTR'CT OF TEXAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO RT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

MAY 3 o2017
~,OURT

SHEILA GREEN, AS A BENEFICIARY
OF THE SUNSET TRACE TRUST,

§
§
§

Plaintiff,

§
§

vs.

§

NO. 4:17-CV-357-A

§

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

§
§

Defendant.

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., to dismiss. Plaintiff, Sheila Green, as
beneficiary of the Sunset Trace Trust, has failed to respond to
the motion, which is ripe for ruling. The court, having
considered the motion, the record, and applicable authorities,
finds that the motion should be granted.
I.

Background
On March 31, 2017, plaintiff filed her original petition in
the 348th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas,
purporting to assert a cause of action for equitable right of
redemption. On April 28, 2017, defendant filed its notice of
removal, bringing the action before this court.
In her petition, plaintiff alleges that she is a beneficiary
of a land trust that acquired an interest in property located at
8845 Sunset Trace Drive, Keller, Texas. She says that she has an

equitable interest in the property that, as a junior lienholder,
she will lose when defendant forecloses its lien. She says that
she filed the case "as the means to assert her equity of
redemption prior to [an] upcoming foreclosure sale." Doc. 1 1-5 at
~

14. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and a temporary

restraining order. The state court papers reflect that a
temporary restraining order was granted, but that the hearing on
injunctive relief was cancelled. Doc. 1-4 (page 3 of 3).
II.
Ground of the Motion
Defendant contends that plaintiff has failed to plead
sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.
III.
Applicable Legal Principles
Rule S(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. S(a) (2),

"in order to give the defendant fair

notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,"
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
quotation marks and ellipsis omitted) .

1

(internal

Although a complaint need

The "Doc._" reference is to the number of the item on the docket in this action.
2

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.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 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.
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)

See Ashcroft v. Igbal,

("While legal conclusions can provide

the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
allegations.•).
Moreover, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, the facts pleaded must allow the court to infer
that the plaintiff's right to relief is plausible.
U.S. at 678.

Igbal, 556

To allege a plausible right to relief, the facts

pleaded must suggest liability; allegations that are merely
consistent with unlawful conduct are insufficient. Id. In other
words, where the facts pleaded do no more than permit the court
to infer the possibility of misconduct, the complaint has not
shown that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 679.
"Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
[is] a context-specific task that requires the

relief .

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.•

Id.

3

As the Fifth Circuit has explained: "Where the complaint is
devoid of facts that would put the defendant on notice as to what
conduct supports the claims, the complaint fails to satisfy the
requirement of notice pleading." Anderson v. U.S. Dep't of
Housing & Urban Dev., 554 F.3d 525, 528

(5th Cir. 2008). In sum,

"a complaint must do more than name laws that may have been
violated by the defendant; it must also allege facts regarding
what conduct violated those laws. In other words, a complaint
must put the defendant on notice as to what conduct is being
called for defense in a court of law." Id. at 528-29.
IV.
Analysis
To state a claim for equitable right of redemption, a
plaintiff must show:
the property;

(1) she has an equitable or legal right to

(2) based on that interest in the property, she

would suffer a loss from the foreclosure; and (3) she is ready,
willing, and able to redeem the property by paying off the amount
of valid and subsisting liens to which the property is subject as
well as the amounts expended by the mortgagee in association with
the default. 330 Cedron Tr. v. Citimortgage, Inc., No. SA-14-CV933-XR, 2015 WL 1566058, at *3

(W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2015); 9900

Coolidge Trust v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-79, 2015
WL 6522824, at *2

(E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2015).

4

In this case, plaintiff has done no more than say that she
has an interest in the property that she will lose if a certain
foreclosure sale proceeds and that she "can protect her interest
by negotiating with the primary lienholder.• Doc. 1-5 at '

12.

Plaintiff has not pleaded any facts to show the value of the lien
at issue, how she would pay, her own net worth or assets, or any
other information from which the court could inf er that
plaintiff's right to relief is plausible.
A request for injunctive relief is not a cause of action
itself, but simply a form of equitable remedy. Cook v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:10-CV-592-D, 2010 WL 2772445, at *4

(N.D.

Tex. July 12, 2010). Because plaintiff has not stated a claim,
there is nothing on which to base her request for injunctive
relief.

v.
Order
The court ORDERS that defendant's motion to dismiss be, and
is hereby, granted, and that plaintiff's claims be, and are
hereby, dismissed.
SIGNED May 30, 2017.