Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boco v. Argent Mortgage Company, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. New York

March 31, 2014

MARIE C. BOCO, Plaintiff,
v.
ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., and PARK PLACE SECURITIES, INC. 2005-WCW1, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DORA L. IRIZARRY, District Judge.

Plaintiff Marie C. Boco ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against defendants Argent Mortgage Company, LLC ("Argent"), Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS"), and Park Place Securities, Inc. 2005-WCW1[1] (the "Trust, " together with SPS, "Appearing Defendants") seeking monetary damages and equitable relief arising from a purportedly invalid assignment of Plaintiff's mortgage. ( See generally Compl., Dkt. Entry No. 1.) Appearing Defendants move to dismiss the instant action in its entirety pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Defs.' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs. Mem."), Dkt. Entry No. 16-1.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Mem. of Law in Opp. of Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Mem."), Dkt. Entry No. 19.) For the reasons set forth below, Appearing Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint against them is dismissed.

It is alleged in the Complaint that Argent was sold to Citigroup and that it is now known as Citi Bank Residential Lending, Inc. (Compl. at ¶¶ 9-10.) However, neither Citigroup nor Citi Bank Residential Lending, Inc. is a named defendant in this action and neither they nor Argent have appeared in this action. Plaintiff has neither moved to amend the Complaint to add these parties nor moved for default judgment against Argent. Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, for the same reasons that are addressed below in Appearing Defendants' motion, the Complaint against Argent is dismissed, sua sponte .

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the complaint and are accepted as true for the purposes of this motion. On March 23, 2005, Plaintiff obtained a $312, 000 mortgage from Argent for the real property located at 137-07 256th Street, Rosedale, New York 11422.[2] (Compl. ¶ 13.) That same day, Argent assigned the mortgage in blank. ( Id. at ¶¶ 14, 16.)

In 2012, Plaintiff served a Qualified Written Request on the prior loan servicer, Bank of America Home Loans ("BOA"). ( Id. at ¶ 17.) In response, BOA provided Plaintiff with a copy of Plaintiff's first mortgage note. ( Id. at ¶ 18.) The note had no endorsements. ( Id. ) BOA also sent an internal transmittal checklist from Argent that indicated both the note and assignment of mortgage were endorsed in blank. ( Id. at ¶ 19.) Plaintiff also was supplied with two versions of her Uniform Residential Loan Application that contained different gross monthly income amounts. ( Id. at ¶ 20.)[3]

On August 28, 2012, Plaintiff received notification from BOA that it no longer was servicing Plaintiff's loan. ( Id. at ¶ 23.) The notification from BOA indicated that SPS was the new loan servicer effective as of September 26, 2012. ( Id. ) On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff received notification from SPS that it was the new servicer of Plaintiff's loan on behalf of the Trust. ( Id. at ¶ 24.) Plaintiff acknowledges that SPS is the current servicer of her loan. ( Id. at ¶ 11.)

On March 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant action against the defendants asserting state law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and quiet title, as well as a claim under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ("TILA").

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Pleadings are to give the defendant "fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), overruled in part on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). "The pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, ' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "A pleading that offers labels and conclusions' or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Id . (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may move, in lieu of an answer, for dismissal of a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To resolve such a motion, courts "must accept as true all [factual] allegations contained in a complaint, " but need not accept "legal conclusions." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. For this reason, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to insulate a claim against dismissal. Id . "[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Notably, courts may only consider the complaint itself, documents that are attached to or referenced in the complaint, documents that the plaintiff relied on in bringing suit and that are either in the plaintiff's possession or the plaintiff knew of when bringing suit, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken. See, e.g., Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007).

II. State Law Claims

Plaintiff brings various state law claims and seeks damages and equitable relief based on Argent's assignment of the mortgage to the Trust. ( See Compl. at ¶¶ 28-57.) Appearing Defendants contend that Plaintiff's state law claims-all of which are predicated solely on the mortgage assignment from Argent to the Trust-should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to allege that she has suffered damages or injury from the assignment and lacks standing to challenge the validity of the assignment agreement. The Court agrees with ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.