James v. Nationstar Mortgae, LLC

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING 3 MOTION to Dismiss .(Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
INITA JAMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

January 25, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION H-17-3005

O RDER
Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC.
Dkt. 3. Plaintiff Inita James has not responded. Thus, under Local Rule 7.4, the instant motion is
deemed unopposed. Having considered the motion, the record, and the applicable law, the court is
of the opinion that Nationstar’s motion should be GRANTED and that James’s case be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
On May 26, 2017, James sued Nationstar in state court asserting multiple claims related to a
foreclosure on real property in Houston, Texas. Dkt. 1–2 at 2. Specifically, James claimed that
Nationstar violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Texas Debt Collection Act, and the
Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. Id. at 6–7. In addition, James sued for wrongful foreclosure
as well as “misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.” Id. James also sought injunctive relief to stop
Nationstar’s efforts to evict her. Id. at 8. On October 9, 2017, Nationstar removed to this court and
filed the instant motion. Dkts. 1, 3. James has not responded.
Here, Nationstar moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 3.
Nationstar argues that James’s claims lack sufficient factual allegations to survive 12(b)(6). Id. at 5,
7, 12–19. In addition, Nationstar argues that James cannot recover for wrongful foreclosure because

she failed to plead two essential elements. Id. at 5. Further, Nationstar argues that James cannot
recover for a DTPA violation because she does not count as a “consumer” under that statute and thus
lacks standing. Id. at 9. Nationstar also argues that because it does not count as a “debt collector”
under the FDCPA, that claim fails.

Id. at 12.

Finally, Nationstar argues that James’s

“misrepresentation and unjust enrichment” claim fails to identify a basis for recovery. Id. at 14–19.
Because the court agrees, Nationstar’s motion is GRANTED and James’s claims are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
Signed at Houston, Texas on January 25, 2018.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

2