United States District Court, D. New Jersey
LISA HOOD, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
VICTORIA CROSSING TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, et al. Defendants.
Joshua
Louis Thomas, Esq. JOSHUA L. THOMAS & ASSOCIATES 225
Wilmington West Chester Pike Suite Attorney for Plaintiffs
Christian M. Scheuerman, Esq. MARKS, O'NEILL,
O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. Cherry Tree Corporate
Center Attorney for Defendants Victoria Crossing Townhouse
Association, Atlantic Realty Management, Kenneth Jaeger,
Marjorie Wilson, Gail Lusk, and Debra Lafferty
Laurence P. Chirch, Esq. SANDELANDS EYET LLP Attorney for
Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper
Christina A. Livorsi, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP Attorney for
Defendants MTGLQ Investors and New Penn Financial, LLC d/b/a/
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
Martin
J. McAndrew, Esq. O'CONNOR KIMBALL LLP Attorney for
Defendants Brigantine Realty and David Getter
OPINION
ROBERT
B. KUGLER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
This
case arises out of a foreclosure action on a property leased
by Plaintiffs Lisa Hood, David Hood, Sr., David Hood III, and
Imani Hood (hereinafter, "Plaintiffs") at 108 Pine
Knoll Circle in Mays Landing, New Jersey (hereinafter
"the Property"). Plaintiffs filed suit against
Defendants Victoria Crossing Townhouse Association
(hereinafter "Victoria Crossing"), Kenneth Jaeger,
Atlantic Realty Management (hereinafter "Atlantic
Realty"), Marjorie M. Wilson, Debra A. Lafferty, Gail H.
Lusk, Nationstar Mortgage (hereinafter
"Nationstar"), MTGLQ Investors (hereinafter
"MTGLQ"), New Penn .Financial d/b/a Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing (hereinafter "Shellpoint"),
Brigantine Realty, and David Getter. (Compl. [Docket Item 1]
-) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that
Defendants defrauded them by concealing the identity of the
true owner of the Property and the status and nature of
foreclosure proceedings against its previous owner and failed
to disclose required information. Id.
As
discussed below, the Complaint was filed after two closely
related proceedings in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Atlantic County. In both actions, the court dismissed
Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. (See Order
Dismissing Complaint against Nationstar [Docket Item 15-10];
Order Dismissing Complaint against Victoria Crossing, et al.
[Docket Item 16-5]; Denial of Motion to Vacate [Docket Item
15-13].][1]
Presently
before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, preclusion under
the New Jersey entire controversy doctrine, and for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6). (See
Defs. Brigantine Realty and Getter's Mot. to Dismiss
[Docket Item 5]; Defs. MTGLQ and Shellpoint's Mot. to
Dismiss [Docket Item 8]; Def. Nationstar's Mot. to
Dismiss [Docket Item 15]; Defs. Victoria Crossing, Atlantic
Realty, Jaeger, Lafferty, Lusk, and Wilson's Mot. to
Dismiss [Docket Item 16].) Plaintiffs have not filed any
opposition briefs in relation to any of these motions. For
the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the motions
to dismiss with prejudice.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In
2007, Luz Ramirez executed a promissory note, payable to
Countrywide Home Loans and secured by a mortgage, for the
Property. (Mortgage Documents [Docket Item 8-3] .) In March
2014, the mortgage was assigned to Defendant Nationstar.
(Assignment of Mortgage [Docket Item 8-5].)
In July
2014, Ramirez transferred the Property to Defendant Victoria
Crossing through a quitclaim deed[2] as part of Ramirez's
bankruptcy proceedings. (Transcript of Hearing on Motion to
Dismiss Second Amended Complaint [Docket Item 16-5],
29:18-21.) In August 2014, Plaintiffs entered into a written
lease agreement with Defendant Victoria Crossing and began
occupying the Property the following month. (Def. Victoria
Crossing's Mot. to Dismiss [Docket Item 16-4].)
On
September 2, 2014, Defendant Nationstar filed a foreclosure
action against Ramirez in the Superior Court of Atlantic
County, Chancery Division. (Nationstar's Complaint
[Docket Item 8-6].)
In
February 2015, Plaintiffs filed a pro se complaint
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, Law
Division against Defendants Nationstar, Victoria Crossing,
Atlantic Realty, Lafferty, and Lusk. (Def. Victoria
Crossing's Mot. to Dismiss [Docket Item 16-4], 3).
Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint in April
2015 against the same Defendants. (See Second
Amended Civil Complaint, [Docket Item 16-5], Ex. B.) On June
12, 2015, the Law Division dismissed the Plaintiffs'
claims. against Defendant Nationstar with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(Dismissal [Docket Item 15-10]). On June 26, 2015, the Law
Division further dismissed Plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice against Defendants Victoria Crossing, Atlantic
Realty, Lafferty, and Lusk after oral argument for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See
Transcript of Oral Argument, [Docket Item 16-5].) After oral
argument, the Law Division held that Defendant Victoria
Crossing was the legal owner of the Property at the time
Plaintiffs entered into the lease agreement with Defendant
Victoria Crossing, therefore all of Plaintiffs' claims
based on the dispute of the ownership of the Property failed
as a matter of law. (Id. at 29:18-30:3.) The
Superior Court also held that Plaintiffs' other claims -
which were nearly identical to many of the claims against
Defendant Victoria Crossing, Atlantic Realty, Jaeger,
Lafferty, Lusk, and Wilson in the present Complaint - were
either insufficiently pled or barred by the parol evidence
rule. (Id. at 33:17-35:11.)
Defendant
Nationstar's foreclosure complaint against Ramirez was
initially dismissed in January 2016, but it was reinstated in
.October of the same year and final judgment in favor of
Defendant Nationstar was entered on January 12, 2017. (Final
Judgment for Foreclosure [Docket Item 8-10].) On January 24,
2017, Defendant Nationstar assigned the mortgage to Defendant
MTGLQ. (Assignment of Mortgage [Docket Item 8-16].) Defendant
Nationstar sent a notice to Plaintiffs regarding the
foreclosure and the upcoming sheriff's sale.
(Certification of Proof of Notice [Docket Item 8-11].) On
August 17, 2017, the Property was sold to Defendant MTGLQ at
the sheriff's sale. (Report of Sale [Docket Item 8-15].)
On September 21, 2017, notice was sent to Plaintiffs
regarding the change in ownership. (Notification Letter
[Docket Item 8-17].)
Five
months after the Superior Court's final judgment in favor
of Defendant Nationstar in the foreclosure action, Plaintiffs
filed a pro se motion in the Superior Court of
Atlantic County to vacate the final judgment in the
foreclosure action, stay the scheduled sheriff's sale,
and dismiss the foreclosure complaint. (Motion to Vacate
[Docket Item 8-12].) The Superior Court scheduled oral
argument regarding the pro se motion for October 27,
2017, where Plaintiffs' motion was denied after they
failed to appear. (Transcript of Motion Hearing [Docket Item
8-13]; Denial of Motion to Vacate [Docket Item 15-13].) The
Superior Court held that Plaintiffs did not have standing to
bring forth any of their claims because they were not a party
to the original loan and that they should seek remedies
through the appropriate landlord dispute court in the state
if they had issues with their tenancy. (Transcript of Motion
Hearing [Docket Item 8-13], 13:11-25.)
On
December 12, 2017, Defendant MTGLQ filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of Atlantic County against Plaintiffs for
nonpayment of rent. (Tenancy Summons[3] [Docket Item 8-18].) On
January 24, 2018, the Superior Court dismissed the action
after the rent was paid in full by Plaintiffs to Defendant
MTGLQ. (Case Summary[4][Docket Item 8-20].)
While
continuing to live at the Property, Plaintiffs filed the
present Complaint on July 31, 2018. (Compl. [Docket Item 1].)
The Complaint seems to be premised on three main allegations:
(1) that the mortgage documents, transfer, and note were
fraudulent, (2) that the Defendants misrepresented and
concealed the true status and nature of the foreclosure, and
(3) that the Defendants, in their respective capacities,
improperly managed the Property and harassed the Plaintiffs.
(See Compl. [Docket Item 1].) The Complaint alleges
a host of conclusory recitations of statutes and fails to
comply with the Local Civil Rules. More troubling, the Court
notes that Plaintiff's Counsel has a well-documented
history of filing virtually identical claims in the
foreclosure context barred by either the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the New Jersey
entire controversy or both in the District of New Jersey and
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.[5]
Thereafter,
Defendants filed the present motions to dismiss.
(See Defs. Brigantine Realty and Getter's Mot.
to Dismiss [Docket Item 5]; Defs. MTGLQ and Shellpoint's
Mot. to Dismiss [Docket Item 8]; Def. Nationstar's Mot.
to Dismiss [Docket Item 15]; Defs. Victoria Crossing,
Atlantic Realty, Jaeger, Lafferty, Lusk, and Wilson's
Mot. to- Dismiss ...