Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Bourg v. Citibank NA

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

November 7, 2017


         SECTION: “H” (1)



         Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Motion for More Definite Statement. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.


         Appearing pro se, Plaintiffs Herman Henry Bourg, Jr. and Noel Ledet Bourg have brought claims against Citibank NA, as Trustee of the NRZ Pass Through Trust VI, and Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare void a judgment entered by the 17th Judicial District Court of Louisiana foreclosing on their property. They allege, among other things, that the mortgage had been cancelled and that the attorney for the NRZ Pass-Through Trust VI presented insufficient evidence to obtain a foreclosure. In addition, Plaintiffs complain that they never received notice of the transfer of ownership of their loan or a complete payment history.

         Defendants have moved for dismissal of these claims on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, they request a more definite statement. Plaintiffs have failed to oppose Defendants' Motion. The Court may not, however, simply grant the instant Motion as unopposed. The Fifth Circuit approaches the automatic grant of dispositive motions with considerable aversion.[1] Accordingly, this Court will consider the merits of Defendants' Motion.


         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 Plaintiffs- bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.[4]


         Defendants move for dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, Defendants allege that this Court does not have jurisdiction to overturn a state court's foreclosure judgment pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. “[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that inferior federal courts do not have the power to modify or reverse state court judgments except when authorized by Congress.”[5] The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine “is confined to cases . . . brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”[6] Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims seeking relief from a state court's judgment foreclosing on their property fits squarely within this doctrine. On March 11, 2016, the 17th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Lafourche issued an order for the seizure and sale of the Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs now directly attack that judgment, arguing that the mortgage was canceled or that insufficient evidence was presented. “When issues raised in federal court are ‘inextricably intertwined' with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such a review.”[7] Accordingly, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims.[8]

         Even if this Court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction over all of Plaintiffs' claims, however, Plaintiffs also lack standing to bring their claims. Plaintiffs' Complaint clearly alleges that they were forced to file for bankruptcy as a result of the incidents at issue in the Complaint. The Court takes judicial notice[9] that Plaintiffs filed for voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy on December 15, 2016, well after the events giving rise to the claims at issue here.[10] As Defendants correctly point out, causes of action that accrue prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition are property of the estate.[11] Once a cause of action becomes part of the bankruptcy estate, the debtor loses his rights to bring such an action.[12] The trustee becomes the only party with standing to prosecute the action, even after the case has ended.[13] Accordingly, Plaintiffs no longer have standing to bring the causes of action alleged herein.

         Because the Court has found that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and Plaintiffs lack standing, it need not address the remainder of Defendants' arguments.


         For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack ...

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.