United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
EDGARDO RAMOS, W.S.D.J.
case arises out of the allegedly abusive practices employed
by mortgage loan servicers in the wake of the housing crisis.
Pro se Plaintiff Shirley Knight-Harris brings this
action against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee
for Golden West Financial Corporation Securitized Trust.
Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
Amended Complaint is confusingly written and difficult to
follow. However, the Court remains obligated to construe a
pro se complaint liberally, Hill v.
Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011), and to
interpret a pro se plaintiff's claims as raising
the strongest arguments that they suggest. Triestman v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.
2006). The obligation to be lenient while reading a pro
se plaintiff's pleadings “applies with
particular force when the plaintiff's civil rights are at
issue.” Jackson v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Labor,
709 F.Supp.2d 218, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing McEachin
v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004)).
the Court accepts the following allegations from the Amended
Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) (Doc. 6) as true for
purposes of this motion. See Koch v. Christie's
Int'l PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2012);
Vail v. City of New York, 68 F.Supp.3d 412, 427
(S.D.N.Y. 2014). The Court also takes judicial notice of the
Deed of Trust, Notice of Default and Election to Sell, and
the Notice of Trustee Sale, as they are incorporated by
reference in the Amended Complaint. See Am. Compl.
¶¶ 22, 26, 49.
The Home Affordable Modification Program
early 2009, as part of an effort to mitigate the housing
crisis and keep borrowers out of foreclosure, the federal
government established the Home Affordable Modification
Program (“HAMP”). Id. ¶ 13. In
general terms, HAMP is designed to lower the monthly mortgage
payments of participating borrowers to an affordable level.
Id. Participating mortgage servicers offer temporary
modifications to qualifying homeowners via agreements that
set forth various conditions that must be met in order for
the borrower to obtain a permanent loan modification.
Id. at ¶¶ 17, 18. Foreclosure proceedings
are suspended during the evaluation and trial periods.
Id. at ¶ 15. Borrowers who ultimately do not
qualify for HAMP must be nonetheless considered for
alternative foreclosure prevention options. Id. at
April 2009, Wells Fargo signed a Servicer Participation
Agreement with the United States Treasury, in its capacity as
a loan servicer, agreeing to comply with HAMP requirements
and to perform loan modification and other foreclosure
prevention services described in the program guidelines.
Id. at ¶ 14.
The Knight-Harris Loan
resides in Los Angeles, California. Id. at ¶ 5.
On July 18, 2006, Plaintiff executed a $360, 500 Adjustable
Rate Mortgage Note (“Note”) with World Savings
Bank, FSBto refinance her property. Id. at
¶ 22. That same day, she also executed a Deed of Trust
with World Savings Bank, FSB, which was secured by her
property. Declaration of Zalika T. Pierre in Support of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (“Pierre
Decl.”) (Doc. 15) Ex. E. The Deed of Trust was recorded
on July 27, 2006 in Recorder's Office in Los Angeles
County. Plaintiff subsequently failed to make her loans
payments and defaulted on her mortgage loan. Am. Compl. ¶
alleges that she had been applying for loan modifications for
almost five years. Id. at ¶ 54. Though she has
been granted two modifications to her loan, her most recent
application has been denied, despite meeting the requisite
qualifications. Id. at ¶ 22, 49-54. As a result
of Plaintiff's default, on June 23, 2014, a Notice of
Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust was mailed
to Plaintiff at the property address. Pierre Decl. Ex. G. On
March 21, 2016, due to Plaintiff's failure to cure her
default, a Notice of Trustee Sale was issued. Id. at
Ex. H. Plaintiff thereafter filed for bankruptcy and the
foreclosure sale was postponed. Id. at Ex. I.
commenced the instant action on April 7, 2016. (Doc. 1) On June
13, 2016, Defendant requested a pre-motion conference to seek
leave to file a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 4) The Court granted
Defendant's application, scheduled a pre-motion
conference for June 29, 2016, and ordered Plaintiff to
respond to Defendant's request by June 22, 2016. (Doc. 5)
On June 17, 2016, however, in lieu of responding to
Defendant's request, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. (Doc. 6) Plaintiff did not reply to
Defendant's letter request nor did she appear at the