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.

Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nation Trust Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

May 8, 2019


         SECTION A(1)



         Before 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.[1] 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.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff 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).

         Plaintiff 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).

         II. Legal Standard

         In the 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)).

         The 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).

         III. Discussion

         Defendants 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.

         A. Detrimental Reliance

         Louisiana 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.

         Plaintiff 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 ...

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.