Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; March 19, 2018; Federal Appellate Court
The Plaintiffs, consisting of six individuals representing themselves, have filed an Amended Complaint against 13 defendants, primarily banks and corporate entities, alleging misconduct related to mortgage loan servicing, origination, and bankruptcy. The defendants include Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, U.S. Bank, and others, along with numerous John/Jane Doe entities. The Amended Complaint presents eight counts, including claims of unfair consumer practices, violations of the False Claims Act, and failures under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. All bank defendants have moved to dismiss the case. The Court found that the Plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish personal jurisdiction over Bank of America and Countrywide, nor did they adequately state claims against the other named defendants. Consequently, the motions to dismiss were granted, and the Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, along with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (acting as attorney in fact for U.S. Bank National Association and One West Bank F.S.B.), and SecurityNational Mortgage Company, have all filed motions to dismiss the case on the grounds of failure to state a claim for relief. The legal standard for evaluating such motions includes considerations of personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the complaint.
For personal jurisdiction, a defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum to avoid offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, as established in *Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington*. The plaintiff has the burden to show personal jurisdiction with specific factual allegations, and the court resolves factual discrepancies in favor of the plaintiff.
Regarding failure to state a claim, a complaint must present a short and plain statement that illustrates entitlement to relief, including sufficient factual allegations to establish plausibility. Merely offering labels or naked assertions is insufficient, as highlighted in *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly* and *Ashcroft v. Iqbal*. The court must construe the complaint favorably towards the plaintiff and accept reasonable inferences as true. Pro se plaintiffs are held to less stringent standards but must still meet the pleading requirements set forth in *Iqbal* and *Twombly*.
The Court does not accept legal conclusions or superficial recitals of a cause of action supported solely by conclusory statements. In evaluating a complaint's sufficiency, the Court considers only the facts within the complaint, documents attached to it, and matters subject to judicial notice. Bank of America, N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. contest the Amended Complaint, asserting that it fails to establish personal jurisdiction in the District. The Court concurs, noting that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated specific facts necessary for establishing personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs claim jurisdiction based on general statements about the Banks transacting business and committing acts under the False Claims Act in the District, which the Court finds inadequate. The Amended Complaint does not provide evidence that these Banks engaged in any actions relevant to the Plaintiffs' complaints within the District, and it fails to assert that the properties involved are located there, as they are all in Hawaii. Consequently, the complaint does not establish a substantial connection to the District necessary for specific personal jurisdiction. Additionally, it lacks allegations of "continuous and systematic" ties to the District that would justify general personal jurisdiction. The Court concludes that the Amended Complaint does not provide a sufficient basis for asserting jurisdiction over Bank of America and Countrywide, warranting dismissal of the claims against them.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, U.S. Bank National Association, One West Bank F.S.B., and SecurityNational Mortgage Company (collectively, the "Bank Defendants") have not raised personal jurisdiction as a defense, which may waive this objection. Despite uncertainty regarding the Amended Complaint's factual basis for establishing personal jurisdiction, the assessment proceeds to the Bank Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Amended Complaint does not adequately allege claims against any of the Bank Defendants across eight counts, largely treating them as a collective entity rather than addressing specific actions by each defendant.
Key allegations include claims of unfair and deceptive practices, false claims for payment, inadequate bankruptcy procedures, improper foreclosure actions, and violations of the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statute. However, these assertions lack particularity, consisting primarily of generalities and legal conclusions that do not meet the pleading standards set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly regarding fraud. The complaint does not provide specific instances of alleged wrongdoing by the Bank Defendants and fails to establish a clear connection between each defendant and the plaintiffs.
Additionally, much of the Amended Complaint appears to be derived from a separate case involving the U.S. government against Suntrust Mortgage, which diminishes its relevance and applicability to the current defendants. Overall, the Amended Complaint lacks the necessary factual groundwork to support any claims against the Bank Defendants, rendering a detailed review of each claim unnecessary, though Count Four is noted as particularly deficient in this regard.
Count Four of the Amended Complaint alleges violations of the False Claims Act, claiming that the Banks knowingly submitted false claims for payment. However, the Act mandates that such actions be filed in the name of the Government and under seal, which the Plaintiffs failed to do, as they brought this suit as individuals rather than on behalf of the government. Courts have ruled that pro se plaintiffs cannot represent U.S. interests. The Plaintiffs' attempt to base their claims on a separate case involving different parties does not establish a valid claim against the Bank Defendants. Their Opposition to the motions to dismiss does not rectify the deficiencies in their pleadings, and the attached exhibits do not adequately link the Plaintiffs to the Defendants or clarify the legal theories involved. The Amended Complaint also fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Similarly, the claims against remaining defendants RCO Hawaii, Steven Mnuchin, and other unnamed entities lack sufficient connection to the Plaintiffs' allegations. As a result, the court will grant the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice. Any defendants named in the original complaint but not included in the Amended Complaint are considered dismissed. The Amended Complaint is now the operative complaint. Additionally, relevant details about the headquarters of Bank of America and Countrywide, as well as references to a Consent Judgment filed in a related matter, are noted for context.
