United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
ZAINEY JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 7)
filed by Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (herein after collectively referred
to as “Defendants”). The motion, set for
submission on March 20, 2019, is before the Court. The Court
notes that the motion is not opposed. Having considered the motion
and memorandum of counsel, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that Defendants' motion should be
GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.
owns immovable property located in New Orleans, Louisiana.
(Rec. Doc. 1 Complaint, p. 2). On March 28, 2007, Plaintiff
executed a promissory note to finance the immovable property.
(Rec. Doc. 7-1, p. 2). Plaintiff's mortgage loan is held
by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche
Bank”) and serviced by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
(“Ocwen”). (Id. at 1). On October 21,
2015, Plaintiff executed a loan modification with Ocwen.
(Rec. Doc. 7-2, p. 34). Plaintiff defaulted on the loan, and
on May 28, 2017, Deutsche Bank filed a Petition for Executory
Process in Orleans Parish Civil District Court. (Rec. Doc.
7-2 p.1). The court then issued an Order of Executory Process
(Rec. Doc. 7-2, p.69), and the clerk of court issued a Writ
of Seizure (Rec. Doc. 7-3). Prior to the Sheriff's sale,
Deutsche Bank voluntarily dismissed the state court
foreclosure action. (Rec. Doc. 7-4).
filed the instant suit for declaratory, injunctive,
compensatory, and punitive relief, and pursue several claims
including: detrimental reliance; fraud; unconscionable
contract; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; quite
title; and slander of title. (Rec. Doc. 1, pp. 6-20).
Defendants now request this Court to dismiss the case
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
context of a motion to dismiss the Court must accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.
Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232
(5th Cir. 2009) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues
& Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Lovick v.
Ritemoney, Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)).
However, the foregoing tenet is inapplicable to legal
conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009). Thread-bare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550, U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is
whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the
complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v.
Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe
v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008)). To
avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to
“state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
at 1949). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The Court
does not accept as true “conclusory allegations,
unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.”
Id. (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407
F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal conclusions must be
supported by factual allegations. Id. (quoting
Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950).
argue that Plaintiff's numerous claims fail as a matter
of law or are inadequately pled and cannot be cured through
an amendment to the Complaint. (Rec. Doc. 7-1, p. 1).
Defendants address each of Plaintiff's claims
individually as to why this Court should dismiss each claim;
the Court will proceed likewise.
Civil Code Article 1967 provides, “A party may be
obligated by a promise when he knew or should have known that
the promise would induce the other party to rely on it to his
detriment and the other party was reasonable in so
relying.” In order to prove detrimental reliance, a
plaintiff must prove: (1) a representation by conduct or word
made by the defendant; (2) justifiable reliance on behalf of
the plaintiff; and (3) a change in position to the
plaintiff's detriment because of the reliance. Luther
v. IOM Co. LLC, 130 So.3d 817, 825 (La. 2013). Louisiana
law does not favor detrimental reliance; therefore, a
plaintiff may not avail himself of this doctrine if he cannot
prove all of these elements. Id.
pleads that Defendants' actions are fraudulent, false,
and deceptive. (Rec. Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff claims to be a
victim of predatory lending as he was provided with a loan he
could not pay, and he detrimentally relied on the
servicer's representation that it would grant him a
modification. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff asserts that ...