United States District Court, D. New Jersey
JOHN T. KEMP, Plaintiff,
SELECT PORTFOLIO, INC. SPS, LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, TRUSTEE FOR LEHMAN BROTHERS STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST SAIL 2005-2, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
T. KEMP Appearing pro se.
CHARLES W. MILLER, III BEN ZEV RAINDORF ROBERT D. BAILEY
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP Attorneys for Defendants.
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
case concerns various federal and state statutory and state
common law claims stemming from the foreclosure and ordered
Sheriff's Sale of Plaintiff's residence. Currently
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. For
the reasons discussed herein, Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss will be granted.
Court takes its facts from the allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint. It appears Plaintiff owned a residential home at
120 Chestnut Street, Audubon, N.J. 08106 (the
“Property”). Plaintiff's home was subject to
a mortgage (the “Mortgage”). Although it is
unclear the role of each Defendant, Plaintiff alleges each
Defendant was involved in some manner with the issuing,
servicing, or transferring of the Mortgage. At some point,
one of the defendants initiated foreclosure proceedings in
the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Camden
County, final judgment was rendered, Plaintiff's
residence was foreclosed upon, and a Sheriff's Sale was
Complaint is not a model of clarity as to which claims he
actually wishes to have adjudicated and which violations he
notes as background. Regardless, the Court will note here the
claims it believes are at issue as faithfully as possible.
Plaintiff claims the following: (1) a violation of 24 C.F.R.
§ 3500.10, a regulation implementing the Unfair,
Deceptive or Abusive Acts and Practices (the
“UDAP”); (2) a request for declaratory and
injunctive relief finding the mortgage void, keeping the
Property in his name, and halting the Sheriff's Sale; (3)
a request for punitive damages, the legal basis of which is
unclear; (4) a violation of the UDAP, 15 U.S.C. §
45(a)(1) and the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution; (5) violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §
1601, et seq.; (6) predatory lending; and (7) quiet
title. The corresponding relief requested includes
compensatory, special, treble, and punitive damages as well
as the declaratory and injunctive relief noted
24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a letter with this Court suggesting
that he had entered Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. On July 3, 2019,
this Court filed an Order requesting the parties to file
letters with the Court advising it of what effect, if any,
this had on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff
filed a letter on July 10, 2019 and Defendants filed a letter
on July 15, 2019. The Court also construed Plaintiff's
May 24, 2019 letter as opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and as a separate request for injunctive relief. The
Court ordered, in the same July 3, 2019 Order, that
Defendants file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition.
Defendants did so on July 17, 2019. Accordingly, the matters
before the Court are fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.
The Effect of Plaintiff's Suggestion of
discussed supra, Plaintiff filed a letter with the
Court on May 24, 2019 stating that he had filed for Chapter
13 Bankruptcy. Thereafter, the Court asked the parties to
brief the issue of whether Plaintiff's suggestion of
bankruptcy would have an effect, if any, on the continued
litigation of the matter presently before the Court. Both
Plaintiff and Defendants filed a letter with the Court.
letter discusses many specifics about this case, his current
bankruptcy proceeding, and his previous bankruptcy
proceedings but does not directly address the issue of the
current bankruptcy case's effect on this litigation.
Plaintiff stated: “As to the effect that my Bankruptcy
filing may have on this case, I am unsure as I ...