United States District Court, D. New Jersey
C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Court by way of Defendants Bank of
America N.A. ("BANA") and Federal National Mortgage
Association's ("Fannie Mae") motion to dismiss
the Third Amended Complaint of pro se plaintiff
Marilynn English ("Plaintiff"), ECF No. 43, and
Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's
("Freddie Mac" and together with BANA and Fannie
Mae, "Defendants") motion to dismiss Plaintiffs
Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 44. Pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 78(b), no oral argument was heard. For the
reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions are granted.
following facts are accepted as true for the purposes of the
instant motion. In 1988, Plaintiff purchased a residential
property in Verona, New Jersey. Third Amended Complaint
("Compl." or "Third Amended Complaint"),
ECF No. 39, at 2. In 2002, Plaintiff obtained a mortgage from
America's Wholesale Lender, a division of Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide"). Id.
Freddie Mac was an investor in that loan. Id. In
March 2003, Plaintiff refinanced her mortgage and obtained a
loan from Countrywide, which paid off Plaintiffs 2002 loan.
Id. This 2003 loan is the subject of the instant
exchange for the 2003 loan, Plaintiff executed a note for the
benefit of America's Wholesale Lender (the
"Note"). Compl. at Ex. 16. The Note was secured by a
mortgage (the "Mortgage") held by Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), as
nominee for Countrywide and its successors and assigns. ECF
No. 43 at Ex. 2. In 2011, MERS assigned the Mortgage to BAC
Home Loans Servicing, LP ("BAC"). Compl. at Ex. 9.
BAC subsequently merged with BANA, and BANA is the current
holder of the Mortgage and servicer of the loan. Id.
at Ex. 13. As of 2012, Fannie Mae was the owner of the Note.
Id. at 2.
February 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex
County. ECF No. 1. On April 1, 2013, Defendants removed
Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint to this Court.
Id. On November 26, 2013, this Court granted BANA
and Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
(the "2013 Opinion"). ECF No. 24. On May 29, 2014,
this Court granted Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint without prejudice (the
"2014 Opinion"). ECF No. 37. On June 12, 2014,
Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint.
39. Defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
on July 17 and 18, 2014. ECF Nos. 43, 44. Plaintiff opposed
the motions. ECF Nos. 47, 48. On December 23, 2015,
this Court ordered supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs fraud
allegations. ECF No. 70.
Third Amended Complaint alleges claims for declaratory
relief, fraud, and quiet title to Plaintiffs property based
upon "fraud perpetrated by the Defendants"
regarding the Mortgage and the Note and an invalid
assignment. See Compl. at 3.
Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
complaint to survive dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), it "must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft
v. Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twomblv. 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In
evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court must
accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint
as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. See Phillips v. City of Allegheny.
515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008). "Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level." Twomblv. 550 U.S. at 555.
Furthermore, "[a] pleading that offers labels and
conclusions ... will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if
it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual
enhancement." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal
Liberal Pleading Standard for Pro Se
pro se litigant's complaint is held to
"less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner. 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972). Courts have a duty to construe pleadings
liberally and apply the applicable law, irrespective of
whether a pro se litigant has mentioned it by name.
Mala v. Crown Bay Marina. Inc.. 704 F.3d 239.244 (3d
Cir. 2013). A pro se complaint "can only be
dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support
of his claim which ...