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.

Yancy v. Standard Mortgage Corp.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

May 5, 2017

KEVIN YANCY ET AL
v.
STANDARD MORTGAGE CORPORATION

         SECTION: “H” (2)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JANE TRICHE MILAZZO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 11). For the following reasons, this Motion is GRANTED.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs Kevin Yancy and Leslie Yancy bring this action against Defendant Standard Mortgage Company. Defendant is the holder and owner of a note secured by a mortgage on Plaintiffs' home at 4700 Perilli Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana 70127. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs appear to seek damages and rescission of the loan contract based on alleged irregularities in the loan documents. Though Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, the Court may not simply grant the motion as unopposed. The Fifth Circuit approaches the automatic grant of dispositive motions with considerable aversion.[1]Accordingly, this Court has considered the merits of Defendant's Motion.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         I. Lack of Jurisdiction

         A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal district court. “A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”[2] In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the court may rely on (1) the complaint alone, presuming the allegations to be true, (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts, or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts and by the court's resolution of disputed facts.[3] The proponent of federal court jurisdiction-in this case, the Plaintiff-bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.[4]

         II. Failure to State a Claim

         To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”[5] A claim is “plausible on its face” when the pleaded facts allow the court to “[d]raw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”[6] A court must accept the complaint's factual allegations as true and must “draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.”[7] The Court need not, however, accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.[8]

         To be legally sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that the plaintiff's claims are true.[9] “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action'” will not suffice.[10] Rather, the complaint must contain enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each element of the plaintiffs' claim.[11]

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         The Court addresses the jurisdictional challenge first.[12] Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege a basis for jurisdiction. Nevertheless, because Plaintiffs are pro se litigants, the Court must liberally construe their Complaint.[13] The basic statutory grants of federal subject matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Because the Complaint does not specifically state the basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the Court will address both statutes.

         I. Diversity Jurisdiction

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a court has diversity jurisdiction over a case where the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000. “The concept of complete diversity requires that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.”[14] The Complaint does not allege the Plaintiffs' own citizenship nor that of the Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of “distinctly and affirmatively alleg[ing] the citizenship of the parties.”[15] Moreover, were the Court to liberally construe the Complaint, it appears that complete diversity is lacking. Plaintiffs appears to be a citizen of Louisiana, having provided the Court with a Louisiana address. Defendant alleges that it is a citizen of ...


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.