Finsand v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage et al
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 11/18/2011. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
HUMBLE FINSAND,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:11-cv-440-PMW
TAYLOR, BEAN & WHITAKER
MORTGAGE CORPORATION;
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE
SERVICING CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
All parties in this case have consented to having United States Magistrate Judge Paul M.
Warner conduct all proceedings in the case, including entry of final judgment, with appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 73. Before the court is Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Corporation and Roundpoint Mortgage
Servicing Corporation’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss.2 The court has carefully
reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court concludes
1
See docket no. 9.
2
See docket no. 12.
that oral argument is not necessary and will determine the motion on the basis of the written
memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
Defendants argue that the causes of action in Humble Finsand’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint
have been repeatedly rejected by courts in this district and that those causes of action rely upon
misinterpretations of law. The court agrees. Both Chief Judge Ted Stewart and this court have
recently rejected complaints filed by Plaintiff’s counsel that contain the same claims in the
complaint presently before the court. See Pixton v. Citimortgage, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-418-PMW,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112108 (D. Utah Sept. 29, 2011); Saccio v. Bank of Am., No. 2:11-cv511-TS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96618 (D. Utah Aug. 29, 2011); Knudsen v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-429-TS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81797 (D. Utah July 26, 2011). The
court sees no meaningful distinction between this case and those cases. As demonstrated by
Defendants in their memoranda, the previous orders of dismissal by courts in this district are
founded in well-established law. The court concludes that there is no reason to depart from those
prior holdings and that this case fails as a matter of law.
Plaintiff has failed to plead claims upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss3 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
3
See id.
2
complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this
case forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 18th day of November, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?