Villalobos v. PNC Bank N.A.
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 5 MOTION to Dismiss with prejudice. Villaloboss request for injunctive relief is DENIED.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HERMELINDO VILLALOBOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PNC BANK N.A.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION H-14-2551
M EMORANDUM, O PINION AND O RDER
Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by defendant PNC Bank N.A. Dkt. 5.
Plaintiff Hermelindo Villalobos did not respond to the motion to dismiss. Having considered the
motion, Villalobos’s application for temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and
permanent injunction as filed in state court, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that
the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) should be GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Villalobos entered into a promissory note with National City Mortgage Co., d/b/a Accubanc
Mortgage, to secure real property located in Harris County, Texas. Dkt. 1-1. Villalobos claims that
he “fell into financial hardship” and became delinquent on his payments in or around March 2008.
Id. He applied for a modification and was allegedly told that the there would be no foreclosure
during the modification process. Id. However, PNC Bank, which merged with National City
Mortgage Co. in 2009, posted the property for foreclosure on September 2, 2014. Id.; see Dkt. 5 n.2
(explaining the relationship between National City Mortgage Co. and PNC Bank). Villalobos asserts
that, in the interim, he had found a purchaser who agreed to buy the property for $131,000.00. Id.
The closing was scheduled for September 26, 2014.1 Id.
Villalobos filed his application for a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and
permanent injunction in the 269th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas on August 29, 2014. Id.
The state court entered a temporary restraining order on the date the application was filed, and it set
a hearing for the temporary injunction for September 5, 2014. Id. PNC Bank removed the case to
this court on September 4, 2014. Dkt. 1.
PNC Bank now moves to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), claiming that Villalobos alleges no facts upon which a viable claim can be founded and
instead relies on conclusory statements and the mere recitation of elements of causes of action.
Dkt. 5. Villalobos did not file a response to the motion.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ 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,
127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964–65 (2007) (quoting Coneley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)).
In considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint, courts generally must accept the factual
allegations contained in the complaint as true. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale
Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982). The court does not look beyond the face of
the pleadings in determining whether the plaintiff has stated a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Spivey v.
Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999). “[A] complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
1
The court has not received an update indicating whether the closing occurred as scheduled.
2
to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, [but] a plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964–65 (citing
Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994)) (internal
citations omitted). And, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. The supporting facts must be plausible—enough
to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal further supporting evidence. Id. at 1959.
III. ANALYSIS
Villalobos asserts five different claims and requests an injunction. Dkt. 1-1. PNC Bank
asserts that these claims are asserted merely to delay its right to foreclose and that Villalobos’s
claims should be dismissed and his request for an injunction denied. The court addresses each claim
seriatim.
A.
Unjust Enrichment
Villalobos asserts a claim for unjust enrichment, claiming that he has a contract for the sale
of the property in the sum of $131,000, his equity is $15,000, the listing of property in the general
area is $150,000, and the mortgage balance is approximately $110,000, which would leave him with
a equity base of $15,000 or more. Dkt. 1-1. Under Texas law, unjust enrichment “characterizes the
result of failing to make restitution for benefits received under circumstances giving rise to an
implied or quasi-contract.” TransAmerica Natural Gas Corp. v. Finkelstein, 933 S.W.2d 591, 600
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied). Thus, there can be no recovery for unjust enrichment
if the same subject is covered by an actual contract. Id. (citing Lone Star Steel Co. v. Scott, 759
S.W.2d 144, 154 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988, writ denied)). Here, whether Villalobos is entitled
to funds relating to his equity after defaulting on the note are the subject of an actual contract and
3
cannot form the basis of an unjust enrichment claim. PNC Bank’s motion to dismiss Villalobos’s
unjust enrichment claim is therefore GRANTED, and the unjust enrichment claim is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
B.
Violation of the Texas Debt Collection Act
Villalobos contends that PNC Bank violated the Texas Debt Collection Act by threatening
Villalobos with seizure, repossession, or sale of his property without proper court proceedings,
threatening to take an action prohibited by law, wrongfully accelerating his real estate note,
harassment and/or abuse. Dkt. 1-1. However, Villalobos does no more than recite the elements of
the claim. This is insufficient to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.
at 1964–65. PNC Bank’s motion to dismiss Villalobos’s Texas Debt Collection Act claim is
GRANTED, and this claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
C.
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Villalobos contends that PNC Bank violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(“DTPA”) by representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations that
it does not. Dkt. 1-1. Villalobos does not expand as to what agreement he is referring or what was
allegedly misrepresented. Id. Again, merely reciting the cause of action is insufficient to state a
claim. PNC Bank’s motion to dismiss Villalobos’s DTPA claim is GRANTED, and the claim is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
D.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Rules
Villalobos contends that PNC Bank violated Texas Consumer Financial Protection Law by
failing to send proper written mortgage statements with the information required under the “act.”
Dkt. 1-1. PNC Bank notes that it is “unclear from [Villalobos’s] petition what statute he alleges
[PNC Bank] violated.” Dkt. 5. PNC Bank also points out that Villalobos does not state what
4
information was required under the “act” that PNC Bank failed to provide. Id. The court agrees that
it is unclear what statute Villalobos relies upon and that Villalobos has therefore failed to assert a
claim for which relief can be granted. Accordingly, PNC’s motion with respect to the claim for a
violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Rules is GRANTED, and the claim is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
E.
Texas Property Code
Villalobos next contends that PNC Bank violated the Texas Property Code section 51.002(d).
To assert this claim, Villalobos merely quotes from a case in which the court stated that an execution
sale would be set aside if there was proof of a grossly inadequate price and there were other
irregularities such as the failure to send a notice to cure to the address in the holders’ file. Dkt. 1-1.
The facts stated by Villalobos do not indicate that a foreclosure sale has taken place in which there
was a grossly inadequate selling price or that the notice of foreclosure was inadequate. See id.
Accordingly, Villalobos, in merely citing this irrelevant language from another case rather than
plausibly explaining how the facts in this case rise to a violation of the Texas Property Code, fails
to state a claim for a violation of the Texas Property Code. PNC Bank’s motion to dismiss this claim
is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
F.
Injunctive Relief
Villalobos requests an injunction preventing PNC Bank from foreclosing on his home.
Dkt. 1-1. However, Villalobos has not stated any viable causes of action. Accordingly, his request
for an injunction is DENIED.
5
IV. CONCLUSION
PNC Bank’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. All of Villalobos’s claims are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. Villalobos’s request for injunctive relief is DENIED. A final judgment will
be entered concurrently with this memorandum, opinion, and order.
Signed at Houston, Texas on October 29, 2014.
___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge
6
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?