United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
LEDON KENDELL BOUDREAUX, ET. AL.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ET. AL.
the Court are defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(“Deutsche Bank”) and Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC's (“Ocwen”) motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc.
25), plaintiffs Ledon Kendell Boudreaux, Michael Anthony
Boudreaux, Shawn Joseph Boudreaux's response (Rec. Doc.
30), and defendant's reply (Rec. Doc. 34). For the
reasons discussed below, IT IS ORDERED that
the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
a real property case concerning foreclosure. On June 25,
2002, Bernadette Coleman Boudreaux (“Boudreaux”)
executed a promissory note in the principal amount of $45,
000 in favor of New Century Mortgage Corporation (“New
Century”). See Rec. Doc. 25-1 at 2-3. The note
was endorsed in blank and without recourse by New Century,
and at times relevant to the instant suit, purportedly held
by defendant Deutsche. See Rec. Doc. 25-2 at 2.
Boudreaux also executed a mortgage encumbering certain
immovable property (“the Property”) located in
Marrero, Louisiana, as security for the loan. See
Rec. Doc. 25-1 at 3. On July 22, 2012, Boudreaux passed away,
leaving Ledon Boudreaux, Michael Boudreaux, and Shawn
Boudreaux (“plaintiffs”) as the sole heirs of her
estate. See Id.
allegedly defaulted on the note and loan by failing to make
the required payments. See Id. On September 30,
2013, defendant Deutsche filed a petition for executory
process against the unopened succession of Boudreaux in state
court to enforce the New Century mortgage. See id;
see also Rec. Doc 30 at 2. On October 10,
2013, the state court executed an order of executory process,
directing that a writ of seizure and sale be issued and
commanding the Jefferson Parish Sheriff to seize and sell the
Property. See Id. at 4. Plaintiffs did not seek an
injunction or a suspensive appeal from the order. See
Id. On August 27, 2014, a writ of seizure and sale was
issued. See id.
to plaintiffs, they attempted to modify the loan twice, once
in January 2016 and once in May 2017. See Rec. Doc.
30 at 2. Plaintiffs' January 2016 modification was
rejected. See id. Plaintiffs' May 2017
modification was met with assurance from a representative of
defendant Ocwen that the foreclosure of the Property would be
postponed. See id. Plaintiffs responded to a
document request by defendant Ocwen on June 4, 2015. See
14, 2017, defendant Duetsche purchased the Property from a
sheriff's sale for $40, 000. See Rec. Doc. 25-1
at 4. On June 27, 2017, the deed conveying the Property to
defendant Duetsche was recorded into the Jefferson Parish
Conveyance Records. See Rec. Doc. 25-6 at 3-4.
5, 2018, plaintiffs filed their complaint against defendants,
alleging that the foreclosure was illegal, fraudulent, and
oppressive because defendant Duetsche lacked the authority to
foreclose. See Rec. Doc. 1 at 7. Plaintiffs seek
damages, civil penalties pursuant to 12 C.F.R. §
1024.14(g), and “an order cancelling and expunging the
void documents mentioned hereinabove[, ]” reasonable
cost of suit, recompense of damages and arrears, and any
other relief deemed proper. See Id. at 10-11.
November 20, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
various asserted grounds. See Rec. Doc. 25. On
January 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition,
asserting that this Court does have subject-matter
jurisdiction, but notably silent to other grounds for
dismissal. See Rec. Doc. 30. On February 5, 2019,
defendants filed a reply memorandum. See Rec. Doc.
34 at 1-2.
to subject-matter jurisdiction must be examined before the
merits of a case. See Burciaga v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l
Trust Co., 871 F.3d 380, 384 (5th Cir. 2017).
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a
party to move for dismissal of a complaint for lack of
subject- matter jurisdiction. The party asserting
jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that subject-matter
jurisdiction exists. See Ramming v. United States,
281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). If subject-matter
jurisdiction does not exist, authority to hear the case does
not exist. See Wylie v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 856
F.Supp.2d 837, 843 (E.D. La. 2012).
deciding whether subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking,
”a court may evaluate (1) the complaint alone, (2) the
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the
record, or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts
plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.”
See Buck Kreihs Co. v. Ace Fire Underwriters Ins.
Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12442, at *7 (E.D. La. 2004).
All uncontroverted allegations of the complaint must be
accepted as true. See id.
argue that plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed as a
matter of law, with prejudice, for several reasons.
Principally, defendants argue that subject-matter