Silveira v. Citimortgage, Inc.
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER granting 5 Deft's Motion to Dismiss. This case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Case terminated on February 8, 2012.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(htippen, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DECIO SILVEIRA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-2757
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc’s (“Citi”) motion to dismiss
Plaintiff Decio Silveira’s original state court petition. Doc. 5. Silveira filed his original petition
in the 215th Judicial District Court of Harris County on June 21, 2011, asserting two causes of
action, for a declaratory judgment and a preliminary injunction, against Citi. Doc. 1-3. On July
27, Citi removed the case to this Court alleging diversity jurisdiction (Doc. 1) and on August 3
filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that Silveira’s original petition “fails as a
matter of law and because Plaintiff has not, nor can he, allege facts necessary to support [his
claims].” Doc. 5.
Having considered Citi’s motion, the facts alleged, and the relevant law, the Court grants
Citi’s motion to dismiss.
Background
As alleged in his original petition, Silveira owns a piece of real property in Katy, Texas.
Doc. 1-3 at 2. Although he does not state as much, it appears from his complaint that Silveira
obtained a mortgage to finance the property purchase. In early February, 2002, Silveira executed
a promissory note and deed of trust in favor of Southtrust Mortgage Corporation to secure that
mortgage. Id.
1/4
Silveira alleges that Citi has asserted that it is the current holder of the note and deed of
trust with authority to receive mortgage payments and the power to foreclose on Silveira’s
property. Id. In response to “representations by Defendant,” Silveira began making mortgage
payments to Citi. Id. Silveira states that he has sought to verify the validity of Citi’s claim that it
is the holder of the note and deed of trust and that Citi has refused to provide any documentation
of its status as the note holder. Id. at 3. Nevertheless, Citi apparently has attempted to foreclose
on Silveira’s property.
On June 21, 2011, Silveira filed his original petition against Citi in state court. In that
petition, Silveira asserted two claims for equitable relief. In his first claim for declaratory relief
under Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (“Texas Declaratory Judgment
Act”), Silveira sought a declaratory judgment that “Defendant is not the owner or holder of the
Mortgage; . . . [and] declares which party is the current Holder of the Mortgage, . . . [and] the
amount owed, if any[,] on the Mortgage.” Id. at 4.
In his second claim, Silveira requested a permanent injunction ordering Citi to “desist and
refrain from entering and taking possession of the Home or otherwise interfering with Plaintiff’s
right to the quiet enjoyment and use of the Home; proceeding with or attempting to sell or
foreclose upon the Home; and, attempting to purchase, transfer, assign or collect on the
Mortgage.” Id. at 5.
Legal Standard
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails “to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b) (6). In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 555,
127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), the Supreme Court confirmed that Rule 12(b)(6) must be read in
2/4
conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also Elsensohn v. St.
Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office, 530 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2008). Under Rule 8(a)(2),
plaintiffs are not required to include “‘detailed factual allegations,’ but more than ‘an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation’ is needed.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555). “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.”
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. “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.
Analysis
In his original petition, Silveira asserted only two causes of action: a claim for
declaratory judgment under the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act and a claim for injunctive
relief.
The Texas Declaratory Judgment Act, like the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, is
remedial only and “does not create any substantive rights or causes of action.” Sid Richardson
Carbon & Gasoline Co. v. Interenergy Resources, 99 F.3d 746, 752 n.3 (5th Cir.
1996)(citing.Exxon Corp. v. Burglin, 4 F.3d 1294, 1302 (5th Cir. 1993)). Here, Silveira has
asserted no independent cause of action but seeks only a declaration of rights. Because Silveira
has asserted no independent cause of action on which to base his claim for declaratory relief, the
Court must dismiss his claim.
3/4
Likewise, under Texas law, “[i]njunctive relief is simply a form of equitable remedy.”
Cook v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 2772445, *4 (N.D.Tex. 2010)(citing Brown v. KePing Xie, 260 S.W.3d 118, 122 (Tex.App. 2008). To sustain a claim for injunctive relief, a
plaintiff first must plead a viable underlying cause of action. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84
S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). Because Silveira has not pleaded any viable cause of action, his
claim for a permanent injunction must be denied.
Silveira’s claims are based on the assumption that Citi lacks the legal authority to
foreclose on Silveira’s property without proof that it is “the current owner or holder in due
course of the Note.” Doc. 1-3 at 4. Texas law does not require a mortgage servicer such as Citi
to be a holder of the note in order to foreclose on the Property. Sawyer v. MERS, 2010 WL
996768 *3 (N.D. Tex. February 1, 2010).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Decio
Silveira’s original state court petition (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED for
failure to state a claim.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 8th day of February, 2012.
___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4/4
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?